Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/preswquq/public_html/nbg/fp-includes/core/core.fpdb.class.php on line 302
nbGazette.ca

olmert.jpg
This is the enemy of the Palestinian people not the Israeli people

There is absolutely no need, cause or justification for anyone to start a war. We are after all civilized human beings. Any international incident can be resolved peacefully. Those who start wars are nothing more than criminals with a criminal intent to cause the death of another human being. The most effective course of action to end any war is to go after the person or persons who gave the order to attack another country. One person does not have the authority to launch a war against another especially in a democratic society. If a leader of one country decides to go to war with another country that leader is committing crimes that include crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In the game of chess the objective is to remove your opponent’s king in as few moves as possible. The object of the game is to checkmate your opponent’s king, whereby the king is under immediate attack (in “check”) and there is no way to remove it from attack on the next move. The game is over as soon as you capture your opponent’s king and your opponent surrenders to you. Wars of aggression can be ended quickly simply by applying the game of chess to your self-defense strategy. Defend your people by taking the course of action that will quickly capture and remove your opponent’s leadership.

International law and domestic law allow lethal force to be used in self-defense against armed attacks. Whether it’s George W Bush engaged in an unprovoked attack against Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, or the CIA kidnapping foreign citizens from around the World, it’s legal to use lethal force in response to those kinds of attacks. There’s no special protection given to heads of state that protects them from the otherwise lawful use of lethal force in self-defense. Nuremberg established that heads of state have no immunity from responsibility for aggressive war. There’s no logical legal principle that says it’s better to spare George W Bush’s life, when he’s the head war criminal who started the war, and killed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of relatively innocent people.

Any uniformed member of the Military is a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict. If he is the head policy maker in deciding to launch an aggressive war, then he’s committing an international crime; denying him any right to the kind of protection we give hospital workers or Red Cross workers or the like. If we want to deter aggression, we have to extract a cost from those who are making the decisions. George W Bush gave up over 3500 of his country’s young men and women in his war against Iraq. He is certainly willing to give up thousands more in his war of terrorism in Iraq. He’s not willing to put his own safety at risk, and so it’s very important that we make it clear that we have the legal right to go after even heads of state engaged in massive international aggression.

The only logical and legal course of action to defend ones country and countrymen from an unlawful military attack from another country is to hold the person or persons who gave the order to attack, accountable for their criminal acts. Instead of retaliating against the people of the country whose leader ordered the attack on your country and countrymen one should only attack those leaders who gave the order. No one else should suffer or pay for the crimes of the war leaders. Only the leaders who order their country to attack and murder the people of another country should suffer and pay with their lives. The Nuremberg Trial established “Legal Self-Defense” against Bush’s wars of aggression, the CIA kidnappings and Olmert’s acts of aggression against the Palestinian people. The honorable and patriotic course of action to end their illegal wars is to target those criminal leaders. Hamas and the Palestinian people have the right to self-defense and their legal rights include only attacks against the criminal leadership, not against the innocent civilians in Israel. As soon as the leaders who gave the order to attack and kill your people are eliminated then the war will end. If someone takes over command of the Israeli or US military forces after the war leaders are eliminated and they too order more attacks against you and your country and your people, then they too are legal and legitimate targets. Infiltrating the enemy’s country and attacking only the leadership will end the war quickly and deter future leaders from ordering their people to attack and kill another.

unlawful-combatant.jpg

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” - Marcus Cicero, speaking to Caesar, Crassus, Pompey and the Roman Senate.

Back in March of 2008 an Israeli minister threatened that Gaza faces a “holocaust”, a threat that Israel has now acted upon. The use of the term “holocaust” is usually restricted to descriptions of the Nazi genocide of the Jews in Europe in the Second World War, and many Israelis resent its use in any other context. The oppressed have become the oppressors. The Israeli air strikes are targeting the food and humanitarian aid tunnels not the Hamas leadership. They are cutting off the food supply lines that has been keeping the Palestinian people alive. Once the lines are completely severed Israel intends on sending in tanks and troops to slaughter the Palestinian civilian population.

The Israeli government has adopted the same ideology and policies as the Hitler Regime. Nazism believed that others are to blame for the misery of their people. Nazism saw force as the only answer to their own salvation. Nazism targets only the weak and helpless. Those who follow the Nazi ideology are weak and cowards for they prey on the weak and helpless in order to create the deception that they are strong and powerful. Israel preys on the weak and defenseless. Israel is so weak they require the military and financial backing of the US. Israel wouldn’t and couldn’t strike another country with a military force that could defend itself. The Israeli government are cowards for they only target and kill unarmed civilians. They are murderers. They are acting as children of Satan instead of children of God. The Israeli government does as Satan commands. They do not obey God’s commands. The only way one can show their love for God is to show their love for your neighbors.

Starving the people of Gaza by besieging it was the first step in the Israeli ’s holocaust of the Palestinian people in Gaza. As the people in Gaza do not have an army or air force to defend themselves they are forced to defend themselves from starvation by striking back at their oppressors any way they can. Israel has caged the entire population of Gaza and they have been starving the caged Palestinian people for months now and the entire World has done nothing to stop this atrocity. It is the responsibility of the International community to defend the people of Gaza from the criminal actions of the Israeli government. The entire World must demand Israel cease its aggression and murdering of the innocent Palestinian people. There are numerous UN Resolutions that declares that the Israeli government is guilty of war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. It is time for the International community to take police action against the criminals who have infested the Israeli government. Olmert has already been indicted as a criminal by the Israeli legal system. A criminal has no place and no right to lead a nation. He was forced to resign and yet he is still in power. Because he hasn’t been forcibly removed, and to hold onto the authority that is no longer his, he has now engaged in acts of aggression and murder against the innocent people in Gaza. Olmert should not be allowed to lead the Jewish people. He is a criminal. Criminals have no place in society and they have no authority, right or privilege to lead a nation. The Israeli government is not legal as Olmert is not the legal leader of Israel. He was declared a criminal and forced to resign. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert formally resigned on September 21, 2008. He handed a letter of resignation to President Shimon Peres after briefing his cabinet on his intentions to step down. Olmert is facing five separate police investigations involving allegations of bribery, corruption and other improprieties. The attacks against the Palestinian people are nothing more than a criminal trying to hold onto power - power he legally no longer has.

Written by Mr. Francis A. Boyle - Professor in International Law.
The International Laws of Belligerent Occupation

Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of belligerent occupation. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued: “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;…” Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.

There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.

So this is not a symmetrical situation. As matters of fact and of law, the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Conversely, the Palestinian People are defending Themselves and their Land and their Homes against Israeli war crimes and Israeli war criminals, both military and civilian.

The U.N. Human Rights Commission

Indeed, it is far more serious than that. On 19 October 2000 a Special Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a Resolution set forth in U.N. Document E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev. 1, “Condemning the provocative visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians.” The U.N. Human Rights Commission then said it was “[g]ravely concerned” about several different types of atrocities inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian People, which it denominated “war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.”

In operative paragraph 1 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission then: “Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians…including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity;…” And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission: “Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;…” Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council to “set up” this Commission “for the promotion of human rights.”

Israel’s War Crimes against Palestinians

We all have a general idea of what a war crime is, so I am not going to elaborate upon that term here. But there are different degrees of heinousness for war crimes. In particular are the more serious war crimes denominated “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the start of the Al Aqsa Intifada, the world has seen those inflicted every day by Israel against the Palestinian People living in occupied Palestine: e.g., willful killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and Israel’s illegal paramilitary settlers. These Israeli “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandate universal prosecution for their perpetrators, whether military or civilian, as well as prosecution for their commanders, whether military or civilian, including Israel’s political leaders.

Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity against Palestinians

But I want to focus for a moment on Israel’s “crime against humanity” against the Palestinian People — as determined by the U.N. Human Rights Commission itself, set up pursuant to the requirements of the United Nations Charter. What is a “crime against humanity”? This concept goes all the way back to the Nuremberg Charter of 1945 for the trial of the major Nazi war criminals. And in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, drafted by the United States Government, there was created and inserted a new type of international crime specifically intended to deal with the Nazi persecution of the Jewish People.

The paradigmatic example of a “crime against humanity” is what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jewish People. This is where the concept of crime against humanity came from. And this is what the U.N. Human Rights Commission determined that Israel is currently doing to the Palestinian People: Crimes against humanity. Legally, just like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews.

The Precursor to Genocide

Moreover, a crime against humanity is the direct historical and legal precursor to the international crime of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The theory here was that what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jewish People required a special international treaty that would codify and universalize the Nuremberg concept of “crime against humanity.” And that treaty ultimately became the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In fairness, you will note that the U.N. Human Rights Commission did not go so far as to condemn Israel for committing genocide against the Palestinian People. But it has condemned Israel for committing crimes against humanity, which is the direct precursor to genocide. And I submit that if something is not done quite soon by the American People and the International Community to stop Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian People, it could very well degenerate into genocide, if Israel is not there already.

Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg

The American people do not realize just how lucky they were that the Bush administration successfully pulled off the attacks of September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a cowardly act of treason by George W Bush and Dick Cheney which resulted in 2,974 fatalities but if their attack failed the casualties could have been much higher - the entire city of New York could have been lost. FEMA had deployed to New York City on September 10 to set up a command post at Pier 29, in preparation for a biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12, 2001.

Rudolph Giuliani let the details of BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In his testimony, Giuliani testified that FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a ‘biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA’s National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. “We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse,” Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?

TRIPOD II bio/chem-terrorism-attack exercise scenario involved anthrax. Anthrax spores can and have been used as a biological warfare weapon. Concentrated anthrax spores were used for bioterrorism in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, delivered by mailing postal letters containing the spores.

On Sept. 11, Janette MacKinlay lived in a fourth floor apartment overlooking what was soon to become the ‘pit’ of the WTC. Her neighbor and close friend Bruno told her that he was pulled into a bank lobby off the street next to the the WTC towers by an FBI agent on the morning of Sept. 11 to protect them from the dust cloud from the collapsing tower, and was told by the agent that

“We were told this was going to happen and that it would involve anthrax.”

Another FBI agent told a woman about to enter the NBC Bldg. that she should leave because “there are explosives in the bldg as well as in the WTC.” The FBI clearly was pre-alerted because their offices were in WTC 7, which was pre-wired for a controlled demolition take down that day. MacKinlay collected the dust from the cloud that poured into her 4th floor apartment, and it is this dust that physicist Steven Jones has analyzed and in which he found military-grade thermate as well as other high explosives, proving the presence of controlled demolition charges throughout the towers to which ‘Al Qaeda’ could not have had access to place.

There are additional reasons to believe the TRIPOD II bio/chem-terrorism exercise was at least in part on an anthrax attack scenario, and that the letters that ended up being mailed slightly later with real anthrax may have been written for that exercise.

Giuliani, who oversaw the TRIPOD II bio-chem terrorism exercise of Sept. 10-12 thus oversaw the destruction of evidence at ‘the’ crime scene of the 9/11 attacks, the WTC, ordering the steel that contained traces of controlled demolition explosives to be removed, and the destruction of evidence at ‘the’ anthrax attack crime scene, America Media, Inc. in Florida.

In the summer of 2001 leading up to 9/11 and on Sept. 10, the day before 9/11, top U.S. military and military contractor bio-defense experts held a series of terror response planning meetings and exercises in connection with the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Consequence Management Interoperability System (CMIS) — renamed the Disaster Management Interoperability Services (DMIS) after 9/11 — in which Erlick and Battelle’s then Director of Department of Defense Operations Richard D. Munnikhuysen played key roles. Many of the summer 2001 ‘terror planning meetings’ were held in Johnstown, Penn., near Shanksville, site of the ‘crash’ of one of the four 9/11 planes. A terror workshop involving Erlick and the head of CMIS, Dr. Scott Eyestone, was held in Johnstown on July 9, 2001, and another was held there on Sept. 10, the day TRIPOD II bio/chem-terror attack exercise personnel arrived in another 9/11 attack target, New York City.

The anthrax attacks and Sept. 11 were both inside jobs. ‘Al Qaeda’ didn’t do either. Anthrax was part of a bio-terrorism attack ‘exercise’ scenario planned for September 12, 2001 had the first attack failed. Failure was possible if a fighter pilot had ignored Dick Cheney’s orders to stand down. Failure was possible if the aircraft used in the attacks and flown remotely didn’t hit their targets. Failure was possible if NORAD realized that the attacks were not a drill and scrambled jets to intercept the incoming jets and missile meant for the Pentagon. Failure was possible if someone activated the Pentagon’s defense systems in defiance of Dick Cheney’s orders. As the Bush administration’s Pearl Harbor was a success TRIPOD II bio/chem-terrorism-attack was aborted and perhaps millions were spared.

Anthrax is an acute (rapidly developing) infection of the skin, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. Infection first appears with the sudden onset of flu-like symptoms that appear within 1-6 days after infection. After 2-4 days, victims exhibit a range of more severe symptoms ranging from essentially similar to upper respiratory tract syndrome: mild fever, general malaise, myalgia to difficulty breathing, exhaustion, tachycardia, cyanosis, and terminal shock. Death usually occurs within 36 hours after the patient first experiences difficulty breathing. In cases of pulmonary anthrax, up to 80% fatalities can be expected without treatment. Historically, treatment has been considered ineffective after the appearance of symptoms of inhalation anthrax.

the_enemies_within.jpg
Americans took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The president and members of his administration are the domestic enemies of the United States

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Oath of Office for the President: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Oath of Office for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: Article VI of the Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the Constitution: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

To plan for and prepare for war against a foreign state is, according to US and International law, a war of aggression. Anyone who engages in or participates in the preparation of a war of aggression is guilty of crimes against peace. There are no exceptions to the rule of law. Once you begin making exceptions to the rule of law you no longer have a democracy. Once you start imposing you own selfish will upon your people you no longer have a democracy. Once you start ignoring and violating the rule of law you are a criminal - subject to the rule of law and punishable under the law. According to the United States Constitution once you cross the line and violate the supreme law of the land you are a criminal and must be removed from office through impeachment.

“The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” who may only be impeached and removed for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The US Constitution recognizes and declares that The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States can only be so if they follow the rule of law. Once you abuse your position and commit even a misdemeanor you are a criminal and are therefore no longer fit to be The President, Vice President, or civil officer. The Bill of Rights restricts Congress’ power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion and by prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or “infamous crime,” guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial and local jury, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and reserves all powers not granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States.

If the majority of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan want the wars to end they have the power to end it now. Military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders but they have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, “The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, ‘Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.’ This principle was considered so important that we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials.” The UN called the attack on Iraq “illegal”. International law called Bush attack against Iraq “illegal”. On 19 March 2003, the Bush and Blair administrations commenced a war against Iraq and its people in defiance of the United Nations Security Council.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are unlawful because they were waged in contravention of international law and treaties made under the Authority of the United States. The relevant articles that prohibit one nation or alliance of nations waging war against any other nation or nations are embodied in Chapter VII of the 1945 United Nations Charter (a treaty made under the Authority of the United States) under the caption “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”. No member or members of the United Nations are entitled to wage a war against any nation in defiance of the UN Security Council. It is also clear that a “war of choice” is not permitted. A “war of necessity” in self defense if attacked by another country is permitted under Article 51 – this too is a temporary measure till the Security Council takes steps necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 does not legitimize a pre-emptive war against any nation on the pretext that there is an imminent threat of attack by the said nation.

Remember that Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the US. There were no 9/11 hijackers from Iraq or Afghanistan. A “war of necessity” in self defense if attacked by another country does not apply here as there was no threat from Iraq or Afghanistan against the US or any other nation. The only threats to peace were and are from the Bush administration. They violated the UN Charter first by attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq without provocation. They threatened Iraq and now Iran with the use of force. Remember that the US made the UN Charter law. It is the responsibility of all UN members to remove the threat to peace and suppress the acts of aggression and breaches of the peace that the Bush administration has and is engaging in.

The Purposes of the United Nations are: “1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”

Article 2 - The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. 1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Most importantly; 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

There has never been a bigger threat to the US than George W Bush and Dick Cheney. The actions taken and the orders given by these two have caused more harm and cost the lives of more Americans than all the people sought for and accused of crimes against the US. Bush and Cheney have killed more US citizens than Osama bin Laden. Bush and Cheney are solely responsible for every US servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the attacks on them. There is evidence that it was not Osama bin Laden who planned and attacked the US on September 11, 2001. There is evidence that is being blocked from being presented to the US judicial system and suppressed from the news media. There is evidence that George W Bush ordered and signed off for the attacks of 9/11. The US own president ordered the 9/11 attacks and Dick Cheney took over as commander-in-chief to orchestrate the attacks. In May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills on that day. On the day of the attacks Vice President Dick Cheney was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room. Cheney was afraid that Bush would screw up the operations so he took over command of the entire US defense system including NORAD. Cheney’s first order was to get the entire defense system off line by implementing exercises and military drills. The order was given to conduct military drills that involved an attack on the US by hijacked aircraft. This was key in order to confuse everyone so that the remotely piloted planes could crash into the World Trade Centers and the missile could reach the Pentagon without being shot down. The Pentagon had and has it’s own defense systems that could have easily brought down any threat to it or the White House - if Cheney hadn’t ordered it shut down. 9/11 Commission testimony gives evidence that Dick Cheney was in command on 9/11 and he ordered the entire US defense system to stand down. Even a White House aid was calling off the distance of the incoming bogey and when he asked Cheney “do the orders still stand?” the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”

Bush’s defense of the United States Constitution:

Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. - Andrew Jackson

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. - Abraham Lincoln

Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. - Theodore Roosevelt

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson

The Republican consultant accused of involvement in alleged vote-rigging in Ohio in 2004 was warned that his plane might be sabotaged before his death in a crash Friday night, according to a Cleveland CBS affiliate.

45-year-old Republican Michael Connell was killed when his single-passenger plane crashed Friday into a home in a suburb of Akron, Ohio. The consultant was called to testify in federal court regarding a lawsuit alleging that he took part in tampering with Ohio’s voting results in the 2004 election.

19 Action News reporter Blake Renault reported Sunday evening that 45-year-old Republican operative and experienced pilot had been warned not to fly his plane in the days before the crash.

Karl Rove had threatened Michael Connell and his wife, if he did not “‘take the fall’ for election fraud in Ohio,” according to a letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, by Ohio election attorney Cliff Arnebeck.

“Connell…was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged,” Renault said. “And twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane.”

Renault called Connell’s death “untimely.”

The National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration are now investigating the crash. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, no new information has been made available since the incident occurred.

Connell was the subject of a lawsuit by liberal lawyer Clifford Arnebeck, perhaps most well known for suing on behalf of 37 Ohio residents to block Bush’s electoral college victory in 2004. Arnebeck had alleged Connell’s involvement in a ploy to “flip” votes from then Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry to then-President George W. Bush.

Connell was ordered to testify in the suit in October, and told a federal court that he had no involvement and knew of no plan to switch votes in Ohio in 2004.

The Plain Dealer made no mention at all of the suit in their article Monday.

Connell was the founder of Ohio-based New Media Communications, which created campaign Web sites for George W. Bush and John McCain.

Arnebeck warned the Justice Department that Connell’s safety was in jeopardy earlier this year. In July, he wrote an email to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, requesting witness protection for the GOP operative, which was carbon copied to Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who were sympathetic to his 2004 lawsuit over Ohio’s electoral votes.

“I have informed court chambers and am in the process of informing the Ohio Attorney General’s and US Attorney’s offices in Columbus for the purpose, among other things, of seeking protection for Mr. Connell and his family from this reported attempt to intimidate a witness,” Arnebeck wrote. “Because of the serious engagement in this matter that began in 2000 of the Ohio Statehouse Press Corps, 60 Minutes, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, C-Span and Jim VandeHei, and the public’s right to know of gross attempts to subvert the rule of law, I am forwarding this information to them, as well.”

The interest in Mike Connell stems from his association with a firm called GovTech, which he had spun off from his own New Media Communications under his wife Heather Connell’s name. GovTech was hired by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to set up an official election website at election.sos.state.oh.us to present the 2004 presidential returns as they came in.

Connell is a long-time GOP operative, whose New Media Communications provided web services for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Republican National Committee and many Republican candidates.

“Since early this decade, top Internet ‘gurus’ in Ohio have been coordinating web services with their GOP counterparts in Chattanooga, wiring up a major hub that in 2004, first served as a conduit for Ohio’s live election night results,” researchers at ePluribus Media wrote.

A few months after this revelation, when a scandal erupted surrounding the firing of US Attorneys for reasons of White House policy, other researchers found that the gwb43 domain used by members of the White House staff to evade freedom of information laws by sending emails outside of official White House channels was hosted on those same SmarTech servers.

RAW STORY Investigative Editor Larisa Alexandrovna said Connell’s death should be examined carefully in a blog post Sunday, but stopped short of alleging foul play. She reported on Arnebeck’s lawsuit and Connell’s enjoined testimony earlier this year.

“He has flown his private plane for years without incident,” Alexandrovna wrote. “I know he was going to DC last night, but I don’t know why. He apparently ran out of gas, something I find hard to believe. I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either. I am no expert on aviation and cannot provide an opinion on the matter. What I am saying, however, is that given the context, this event needs to be examined carefully.”

Bush’s preemptive war is a war of aggression. The U.S. policy supporting the war is not the rule of law, but the rule of force.

No U.N. resolution and no Congressional resolution can legalize an illegal war against Iraq. With pen to paper and votes of support, they can only commit to willful ratification, complicity and responsibility for illegal acts by endorsing a criminal enterprise.

A war of aggression against Iraq violates the United States Constitution, the United Nations Charter and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. It violates the collective law of humanity that recognizes the immeasurable harm and unconscionable human suffering when a country engages in wars of aggression to advance its government’s perceived national interests.

Bush’s preemptive war policy is a war without just cause. Under international law and centuries of common legal usage, a preemptive war may be justified as an act of self defense only where there exists a genuine and imminent threat of physical attack.

Bush’s preemptive war against Iraq doesn’t even purport to preempt a physical attack. It purports to preempt a threat that is neither issued nor posed. Iraq was not and is not issuing threats of attack against the United States. It is only the United States which threatens war.

It is not a war for disarmament. It is the U.S. which has stockpiled nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is the U.S. which is directly threatening to use these weapons against another country. It is the U.S. which has bombed Iraq relentlessly for more than ten years, killing scores of innocent civilians.
The Bush Administration turns logic on its head, twisting reality in order to create the pretext for its war of aggression. The Administration claims that the necessary prerequisite of an imminent threat of attack can be found in the fact that there is no evidence of an imminent threat, and therefore the threat is even more sinister as a hidden threat. The lack of a threat becomes the threat, which becomes cause for war.

By the U.S. Government’s own claims, it destroyed 80% of Iraq’s weapons capability in the earlier Gulf War, and subsequently destroyed 90% of the remaining capacity through the weapons inspections process. There has been no evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the U.S., let alone possessing the intention of carrying out such an attack.

Bush’s preemptive war policy and attack on Iraq cannot be justified under any form of established law.

The preemptive war policy and Bush’s military assault on Iraq violates U.S. domestic law and international law. The warmongering, preparations for war, and threats of violence coming from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other White House and Pentagon hawks, were in and of themselves violations of international law and constitute crimes against peace.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that ratified treaties, such as the U.N. Charter, are the “supreme law of the land.”

The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes:

“The purposes of the United Nations are. . . To maintain international peace and sovereignty, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removals of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. . . .”

Article 2 states that all member states “shall act in accordance with the following Principles: ”
“…All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations….”

Under this framework, acts of aggression, such as Bush’s attack, are to be suppressed and force is used only as a last and unavoidable resort.

The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in the aftermath of the devastation and suffering of World War II. The Charter was enacted to bring an end to acts of aggression, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

Disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace are required to be resolved by peaceful means.

Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes,” requires countries to “first of all, seek a resolution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

No Resolution by the U.N. Security Council can Legalize a Preemptive War or First Strike Plan. Bush had asked the U.N. Security Council to support execution of Bush’s policy of a potentially nuclear “preemptive” war, as if that Council could endorse a war of aggression. The Security Council lacks the legal authority to grant such permission. The Security Council, by affirmative vote or by acquiescence to U.S. policy, cannot abrogate its own mandate. No collective action by the fifteen permanent and temporary members of the Security Council can lawfully violate the Charter which is the sole source of their collective authority.

This is made clear in the U.N. Charter itself, which provides in Article 24, that “In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.”

While there are, of course, procedures by which collective use of force may be authorized by the Security Council to maintain or restore international peace and security (Articles 41 and 42) those procedures may not be used to endorse aggression in violation of the primary purposes of the U.N. Charter. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter acknowledges the right to self-defense “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” None of the provisions allow for authorization for Bush’s war plans and first strike strategies. Any resolution authorizing a preemptive war of aggression is ultra vires, or null and void as beyond the authority of the Council to enact.

The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare and also to wage war against Iraq are, each, a violation of international law as a crime against peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter as the “Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.”

Responsibility for War Crimes

Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S. in a war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing or legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes. Under the principles of universal accountability established at Nuremberg, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

The execution of economic sanctions by the Bush I, Bush II and Clinton Administrations, which has caused the deaths of over one million people, primarily children and their grandparents, is likewise sanctionable as a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter and under the International Criminal Court Statute as “the intentional infliction of conditions of life,. . . the deprivation of access of food to medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a population.”

The Bush Administration has rejected the International Criminal Court treaty signed by over 130 countries. This rejection is an admission of the Administration’s consciousness of guilt and of criminal intentions. The Bush Administration acts with a conscious disregard of humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid accountability for their crimes under international law prohibiting crimes against the peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The National Security Strategy promulgated by the Bush Administration states that the United States “will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.

The National Security Strategy: Blueprint for Global Empire

On September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration issued its blueprint for global domination and ceaseless military interventions, in its comprehensive policy statement entitled “The National Security Strategy of the United States.” The National Security Strategy sets forth the U.S. military-industrial complex’s ambition for the U.S. to remain the world’s superpower with global political, economic and military dominance.The stated policy of the U.S. is “dissuading military competition”1 and preventing any other world entity or union of states “from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.”

The strategic plan elevates free trade and free markets to be “a moral principle. . . real freedom” and endorses a comprehensive global conquest strategy utilizing the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade Act of the Americas, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, among other mechanisms.

The Washington Post reports that the National Security Strategy gives the United States “a nearly messianic role” in its quest for global dominance.

The National Security Strategy confirms and elaborates what was reflected in the January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, that the Bush Administration maintains a policy of preemptive warfare contemplating the use of non-conventional weapons of mass destruction as a first strike measure

Written by by Larisa Alexandrovna on December 20, 2008

I don’t usually reveal sources, but I think this is incredibly important. Michael Connell died in a plane crash last night. He was a key witness in the Ohio election fraud case that I have been reporting on. More importantly, however, he had information that he was ready to share.

You see, Mike Connell set-up the alternate email and communications system for the White House. He was responsible for creating the system that hosted the infamous GWB43.com accounts that Karl Rove and others used. When asked by Congress to provide these emails, the White House said that they were destroyed. But in reality, what Connell is alleged to have done is move these files to other servers after having allegedly scrubbed the files from all “known” Karl Rove accounts.

In addition, I have reason to believe that the alternate accounts were used to communicate with US Attorneys involved in political prosecutions, like that of Don Siegelman. This is what I have been working on to prove for over a year. In fact, it was through following the Siegelman-Rove trail that I found evidence leading to Connell. That is how I became aware of him. Mike was getting ready to talk. He was frightened.

He has flown his private plane for years without incident. I know he was going to DC last night, but I don’t know why. He apparently ran out of gas, something I find hard to believe. I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either. I am no expert on aviation and cannot provide an opinion on the matter. What I am saying, however, is that given the context, this event needs to be examined carefully. If you want to understand the context more broadly, I suggest you read this article I did a while back about the break-ins and arson cases that Siegelman and others have experienced.

Just to be very clear and state again, I am not claiming conspiracy theory or direct relation to Karl Rove or the White House in any of these events. What I am saying, however, is that these possible relationships cannot and should not be overlooked by investigators. There are far too many serious and reasonable questions that must be answered for the public.

I have been to Mr. Connell’s home. Mr. Connell has confided that he was being threatened, something that his attorneys also told the judge in the Ohio election fraud case.

When the Soviet Union collapsed it did not affect the rest of the World, then why is the US financial crisis affecting the World? Only the Soviet Union collapsed so wouldn’t it make sense that only the US would collapse. The answer is yes. The problem is the US is selling it as a global crisis. Their crisis is the results of the mismanagement and misappropriation of federal money through the crimes of the Bush administration that includes unwarranted, unjustified and illegals wars (the root of the US crisis) and money laundering of the people’s money through their bailout (bonus) scheme.

It is a fact and it has been proven time and again that wars have caused the collapse of all the super powers in history. It was for that very reason that the US Constitution specifically left the purse strings to the US Congress instead of a war mongering president. Somehow the US Congress is no longer holding the purse strings that would have ended the wars of aggression long ago and thus would have averted this financial crisis. If the US Congress had done it duty, as they all swore to do, they would have impeached both the president, vice-president and speaker of the house and the US financial crisis would have been averted. The US financial crisis is solely the US crisis but because the Bush administration doesn’t and hasn’t taken responsibility for their illegal and therefore criminal activities, the entire nation is forced to suffer for their crimes.

It is the US media giants who are taking orders from the US government to fraudulently sell the US financial crisis as a global crisis. The media is in every home in the US and around the World and their fear mongering and financial terrorism is whats creating an even bigger crisis than what really exists. Only those in bed with the US government are affected by the US crisis. Only the US banks who have gotten greedy and devised elaborate schemes to steal the money of the people are in financial trouble. Their bad investments and bad management of your money has resulted in $trillions being lost. That money was never theirs to do as they have done. No bank, not one, has any money they can legally call their own. The money that is in the banks belongs to the people. For decades instead of the people’s money being safely kept locked in bank vaults where it should be and should have been, the banks have literally stolen your money and gambled it away. The banks of today are nothing more than gambling addicts. They don’t have any money in the first place and they have an addiction so they steal your money to gamble it all away.

The UK is in a crisis because they too engaged in wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. Nether countries had anything to do with the US attacks of September 11, 2001. It is this very reason that makes the US and the UK no different than Germany and Italy and their crimes of wars of aggression of WWII. There is no difference between Nazi Germany invading Poland and the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Hitler’s plans and Bush’s plans are carbon copies. Hitler attacked Poland to take control of the steel industries of Poland so that Hitler could build its war machines. Bush attacked Iraq without provocation to take control of the Iraqi oil to build its oil monopoly. Italy allied itself with Germany in its war crimes and the UK allied itself with the US in their war crimes.

The main reason as stated before, for the US financial crisis is the wars of aggression and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Wars are too costly to maintain, both in lives and financially. The wars are bleeding the US dry to the point that it is now bankrupt. The US government doesn’t have the $700 billion to give to their banker friends. Together, the wars and the privately owned banks that are receiving the Bush administration’s bonuses are contributing to the collapse of the US. There is no great depression coming. That is all fear mongering and a diversion so that your government can steal more from you. The US is simply going to collapse just as the Soviet Union did. The US owes too much. $trillions of bad debt are held by foreign countries. Those who are starting to realize that the US cannot pay their debt are demanding payment to which the US is refusing to pay because the wars have put the US into receivership. It is only the private banks of foreign countries who are affected by the US crisis because of what they bought in US debt is virtually worthless. The people of those countries with the money in those banks are demanding their money but the money is no longer there because when you buy nothing you have nothing. When you pay $billions for nothing you still have nothing. This is what the US has now - nothing.

Your hard earned money has been stolen from you, first by those gamblers who call themselves bankers and now your government - the people who promised you that if you elected them they would serve and protect you. The same people who promised on the campaign trail to protect your homes, your jobs and your financial future have robbed you and you are too blind to see them for who they really are. Their promises were just words that had no meaning whatsoever. They knew that without your vote they could not be elected as governor, senator, congressman or congresswomen, vice-president or president. They told you what you wanted to hear, in order for them to gain your trust and now you see what you have left - nothing.

Don’t be fooled for an instance that George W Bush is looking out for the American people by bailing out the stock market. The Bailout is not what it seems. It is the largest heist in US history and it has all been orchestrated by George W Bush, George HW Bush, and the Clintons. So what has happened and how much has it cost the US people? Publicly the total was $700 billion but the actual amounts has now reached over $7 trillion. As per the coerced Bailout legislation Paulson does not have to report to anyone and his payouts are not subject to either government or judicial oversight. Where is the money going to? To those who supported the Bush administration. This is not and never was a bailout. It is a conspiracy to defraud the US people. It was devised by Bank of America. It is the cover story to hide the Bush Administration’s criminal activities. Every bank that Paulson has supposedly bailed out is on the Fortune 500 list and all have reported major profits in the $billions.

How much will they steal from the American people before Bush leaves the White House? Enough to make it virtually impossible for Obama to do anything to save the nation from the financial crisis that was brought about by the Bush administration’s $7 trillion heist. This theft will make the US collapse.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 Russia inherited foreign debts mostly accumulated at the end of the Communist era that amounted to about $70bn. In the 1990s, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, the country was forced to put out its hand for international financial help. In 1999 its public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product stood at 96 per cent. By comparison the US is in far worse shape than the Soviet Union was in when it collapsed, all thanks to George W Bush and company.

Vice President Dick Cheney said for the first time Monday that he authorized the use of torture against suspected terrorists. In an interview with ABC News, Cheney was matter-of-fact and unapologetic about the use of violating US and International Law by torturing alleged terrorists.

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the [Central Intelligence] Agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do,” Cheney said. “And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.”

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE
Sec. 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and

Sec. 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.

(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

gasdrilling.jpg

To extract gas out of the concrete-like Barnett Shale, operators pump large amounts of water down their wells to fracture the rock. One horizontal well uses about 3 million gallons of water. Most of the water for these gas drilling comes from groundwater. The vast majority of people living in towns and villages get their drinking water from that groundwater. Town and villages and especially farming communities use wells to get their supply of water for drinking, cooking and washing.

According to the Texas Railroad Commission, in 2005, about 2.6 billion gallons of ground water (drinking water) were used for gas drilling in the Barnett Shale. That represents 1.6 percent of the water pumped from the Trinity Aquifer for all human uses. That might not seem like a large percentage. It is an average, though. In some areas, gas drilling might represent 10 or 20 percent of the local usage.

“On average for the aquifer, this is not a big deal,” says Jean-Philipe Nicot, a geological engineer at the Bureau of Economic Geology. “But for some heavily drilled areas like Denton County, it may be an issue. If that drilling expands elsewhere in the area it may become significant.”

If drillers have one vertical well every 40 acres, and if each corresponds to one water well nearby, water use is well distributed across the landscape. In the Barnett Shale, though, it’s typical to use horizontal drilling with multiple wells originating in a much smaller area. Pipelines are also used to deliver water from one spot to many wells.

“If you have one location heavily pumping water to hundreds of wells,” says Nicot, “then people in the vicinity would see an impact.”

In January 2007, Nicot and Potter released a report for the Texas Water Development Board estimating the water use for gas drilling in the Trinity Aquifer from 2007 through 2025. They noted uncertainties due to potential changes in the price of gas which might dampen or accelerate drilling and uncertainties due to new technologies or recycling techniques that might lower the amount of water used in each individual well. Under a mid-range scenario, the team projected a total groundwater use in that time period of 59.6 billion gallons.

About 80 new wells are drilled in the area each month. As the rush to capture more gas from the Barnett play intensifies, the amount of water used for gas drilling will likely rise. At some point, it will compete with water for drinking and farming. Neighbors with shallow water wells might see their supplies drop. That has already happened. Entire water supplies have disappeared not only in Texas but in every state that gas companies have gas drilling operations. What people don’t realize is that all that water is wasted because once it is pumped into the gas deposits the water is now contaminated. The gas companies are shedding responsibility for their greed by jumping on the global warming band wagon. They and the politicians who have received large kickbacks from the gas companies through lobbyists are declaring that the drought is a result of no rain. Despite everything you’ve been taught in school about how rain is formed they want you to believe that nature and global warming is the reason for the droughts. In school were were all taught that the earth has a limited amount of water. That water keeps going around and around and around and around and in what we call the “Water Cycle”.

This cycle is made up of a few main parts:

* evaporation (and transpiration)
* condensation
* precipitation
* collection

Evaporation:

Evaporation is when the sun heats up water in rivers or lakes or the ocean and turns it into vapor or steam. The water vapor or steam leaves the river, lake or ocean and goes into the air.

Condensation:

Water vapor in the air gets cold and changes back into liquid, forming clouds. This is called condensation.

Precipitation:

Precipitation occurs when so much water has condensed that the air cannot hold it anymore. The clouds get heavy and water falls back to the earth in the form of rain, hail, sleet or snow.

Collection:

When water falls back to earth as precipitation, it may fall back in the oceans, lakes or rivers or it may end up on land. When it ends up on land, it will either soak into the earth and become part of the “ground water” that plants and animals use to drink or it may run over the soil and collect in the oceans, lakes or rivers where the cycle starts all over again.

The cycle is broken when the gas companies use the ground water for gas drilling. The water that is pumped into the gas wells is no longer on the surface where the sun can heat it and converts it into vapor or steam that leaves the rivers, lakes or oceans and goes into the air. Over time with the gas companies using more and more ground water for drilling, less water is left on the surface. Eventually they dry up the rivers and lakes that would normally contribute to the production of rain.

According to John Nielson-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist, this drought is one of the most severe the region has felt in the past century. “There’s been a shortage of hay and grass for cattle to graze, crop failures and reduced yields,” he says.

He blames nature for what the gas companies have done. “We’re expecting a wetter than normal winter because of El Nino,” says Nielson Gammon. “But it’s going to take a lot more rain to make up for the deficits. I wouldn’t be surprised to see droughts continue next summer.”

Of course, concerns over drinking water shortages would evaporate if the price of natural gas dropped to a point that made drilling unprofitable. Until that happens you now know where your drinking water is going. If you wait until the price of natural gas drops it may be too late for you and your family and community. What is more important gas companies profiting from the use of your water or using your water to drink and survive? A human being will die of dehydration within a week without water.

General Motors Corp. said Friday it will temporarily close 20 factories across North America and make sweeping cuts to its vehicle production as it tries to adjust to dramatically weaker automobile demand.

GM said it will cut 250,000 vehicles from its production schedule for the first quarter of 2009, which includes a cut of 60,000 vehicles announced last week. Normal production would be around 750,000 cars and trucks for the quarter, spokesman Tony Sapienza said.

Many plants will be shut down for the whole month of January, he said, and all told, the factories will be closed for 30 percent of the quarter.

This is a big blow to the auto industry people as well as to all of the countless numbers of small companies that support the auto industry. This news comes just as the holiday season is fast approaching. This may be what GM thinks is required to end the crisis but it is certainly the wrong action. There is a much better solution to ending the crisis. If sales are drastically down and you have thousands of vehicles that are not selling then it would be logical and financially sound to do something that would reduce your stock, not reduce your workforce.

The solution for all three US automakers is a sale. Drastically reduce the price of the vehicles that aren’t selling. Accept more loans instead on requiring the consumer to walk in with cash in hand. Today with the majority of people locked into pricey mortgage payment who has cash to buy over priced vehicles. Lower the price on all trucks and cars that are the least fuel efficient. Give fair market value for a trade-in instead of refusing to take in any trade-ins. Smaller dealerships can sell the trade-in for you and you can recover the cost and gain a huge chunk of the market. Most people with mortgages can’t afford a pricey fuel inefficient vehicle. Most consumers only have what they have as a trade-in as their deposit on a new vehicle. If you have bargains and you are willing to bargain you can and will gain back the market. Look at how many times a consumer goes into a new car dealership looking for a good deal. If the dealership isn’t willing to deal then the majority of times the consumer will just walk out and go looking for someone who is willing to make a deal.

If you have a product that is over priced, it doesn’t matter how much gadgetry it has and it doesn’t matter how good you and your dealership looks, your product isn’t going sell. If the Big 3 really don’t want to go bankrupt and they can’t convince the government to bail them out then it time to take the appropriate action and have a sale. If you have a truck that your are selling for $34,000 and you know it cost $15,000 to actually produce doesn’t it make sense to lower you cost to a dollar figure that a consumer would accept? We live in a society that is just too expensive to live in. As a result we are forced to adapt by looking for and buying what is affordable. The only solution to the auto industry crisis is holding a global factory direct pricing sale. You don’t have to do it permanently, just until the crisis passes.

sad-afghanistan.jpg
The Special Activities Division (SAD) is the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) covert paramilitary operations unit. They are the real terrorists.

Very few people in the US realize that their country is now in control by the largest state sponsored terrorist organization in the World. The main mission and purpose of the CIA is to execute the president of the United States policies. Those policies are never legal as they involve espionage, assassination, murder, torture, kidnapping, drug trafficking, illegal arms dealing, money laundering and terrorism. Their attacks are not only against foreign states and their leaders. The CIA also attacks the United States and it people when it serves the president except for the one time the CIA went rogue in 1963. Instead of following the orders of then President Kennedy they conspired to assassinate Kennedy while he was in office. The CIA assassinated JFK. At the time George H.W. Bush was a paid CIA agent. Bush was involved in the Bay of Pigs attack against Cuba. Zapata Oil, founded in 1953 by the future U.S. President George H. W. Bush, along with his business partners was used as the base of operation for the attack on Cuba. If the attack was successful the Bush family would control the oil industry of Cuba making the Bush family an oil tycoon. When Kennedy refused to provide air support for the CIA attack against Cuba the mission failed. George H.W. Bush lost $millions and lost their financial future and as a result conspired with other CIA agents to assassinate JFK.

Over forty years later and the CIA has the US under control. Robert Michael Gates is currently serving as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense. He took office on December 18, 2006. Prior to this, Gates served for 26 years in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and the National Security Council, and under President George H. W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence. Gates is by all accounts a seasoned CIA with who knows how many successful criminal acts of espionage, assassination, murder, torture, kidnapping, drug trafficking, illegal arms dealing, money laundering and terrorism under his belt. Both Bush administrations that Gates has served has engaged in countless illegal acts against both foreign countries and the US. George H.W. Bush assassinated a president of the United States of America - John F Kennedy. George H.W. Bush is a drug lord and this was exposed with the Iran-Contra Affair. George W Bush murdered JFK Jr (planted altimeter bomb on JFK Jr’s airplane) in order to secure the presidency of the United States of America. George W Bush conspired with his brother Jeb Bush to steal the presidency of the United States when a state judge appointed by Jeb Bush handed George W Bush the presidency (the US Constitution clearly states and therefore is law that only the elected House of Representatives can decide who is president when a presidential race is too close to call). Once George W Bush successfully stole the presidency he conspired with his father George H.W. Bush to plan for and execute a terrorist attack on US soil so that the Bush drug cartel and oil business failures can attack and steal the oil of the Middle East. That attack was the CIA attack on the US on September 11, 2001. The attack was modeled after the same plan of attack against Cuba code named Operations Northwoods.

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill American civilians and commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to “develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”.

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

The plan states,

“The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.”

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government’s Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed until September 11, 2001 when George W Bush ordered the CIA to execute the attack after which the US government would blame the now infamous but innocent Osama bin Laden.

Since 9/11 (an act of treason by the Bush family), the entire World has fallen victims of the Bush administration’s use of the CIA to commit deplorable and cowardly acts of wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, espionage, suicide bombings, roadside bombings, assassination, murder, torture, kidnapping, drug trafficking, illegal arms dealing, money laundering, and terrorism. Since a former CIA director now heads the Department of National Defense it is clear that the CIA is in complete control of the US. A CIA does whatever the presidents orders no matter if it is legal or not. Before Gates the US military had to follow strict rules of engagement for any mission but since George W Bush put the CIA as head of the DOD any and all military operations will now be conducted to implement the president’s policies - war would essentially be political, not military.

Robert Michael Gates - CIA to the core

In a December 1984 memo to his boss, CIA Director Casey, Gates recommended US airstrikes on Nicaragua, to destroy as many of its tanks and helicopters as possible, and weaken that nation’s left-leaning but Democratically-elected president, Daniel Ortega. Gates wrote that the government of Nicaragua, closely allied to communist Russia and Cuba, was “unacceptable to the United States and that the United States will do everything in its power short of invasion to put that regime out”, and further recommended that the US withdraw diplomatic recognition of Ortega’s government, and instead recognize the Contra rebellion as Nicaragua’s “government in exile”.

Gates was nominated to head the CIA twice. He was first nominated by Reagan in 1987, but the nomination was withdrawn when questions were raised about Gates’ involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. He had worked closely with several people who were publicly linked to the scandals, wherein weapons were sold to Iran and the proceeds were illegally used to fund the Contra rebels. He was certainly in a position to know what was going on, and he was accused of turning a deaf ear when whistleblowers came to him with information about Oliver North’s actions, but Gates always claimed he knew nothing.

In 1991, Gates was again nominated as CIA Director, this time by the first President Bush. Three former CIA employees testified against Gates’ confirmation, on grounds that he had slanted intelligence to suit political policies, exaggerating the Soviet Union’s strength to accommodate Reagan’s view of the USSR as an “Evil Empire”.

At first glance Michael Ignatieff, the current Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, seems like the man that Liberal party members should absolutely adore. He’s taught at Harvard (in the US). He’s worked for the BBC, the Globe and Mail and New York Times Magazine (in the US). He’s published volumes of books.

Like all Liberal leaders, Ignatieff was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, which was earned for him by his hard-working father, who emigrated to Canada from the Soviet Union and eventually served as a distinguished diplomat. George Ignatieff also served as president of the United Nations Security Council. On his mother’s side, Ignatieff can trace his lineage to George Monro Grant. Michael continued to benefit from his family’s status when he attended the University of Toronto… where is father was conveniently the serving Chancellor.

Ignatieff lived in the United Kingdom from 1978 to 2000. During this time he was on the staff at both the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, and worked as a film-maker and political commentator for the BBC. He lived in the United States from 2000 to 2005; there, he was director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (at the same time the US began throwing away the book on human rights by engaging in wars of aggression against foreign states and subsequently kidnapping, detaining without charge, evidence or due process, torturing and murdering of foreign civilians.) He returned to Canada in 2005 and took a position as a visiting professor and senior fellow of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto. In November, 2005 he was heralded as a possible Liberal candidate for the next federal election.

In 2006 he was elected as the Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Ignatieff was named associate critic for Human Resources and Skills Development in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet on February 22, 2006. He left this position on April 7, 2006 to become a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Front-runner for most of the campaign, he was defeated by Stéphane Dion on the leadership convention’s fourth and final ballot. Ignatieff served as the party’s Deputy Leader from December 18, 2006 to November 14, 2008. He was re-elected as Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in the 2008 federal election.

On November 13, 2008 he announced his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party. On December 9, 2008, his only remaining opponent for the Liberal Party leadership, Bob Rae, withdrew from the race, leaving Ignatieff as the only remaining candidate to oust Dion making him the new leader of the Liberal Party.

Michael Ignatieff has already shown pro-American leadership within Liberal party ranks. He recently turned a vote on extending Canada’s mission in Afghanistan almost single-handedly, as he and his supporters stood against the Liberal caucus, and delivered the motion to a narrow victory. The mission in Afghanistan is an anti-Canadian mission as it has nothing to do with peacekeeping and more to do with aiding the US in their wars of aggression. Despite all the evidence that declares that Afghanistan did not attack the US on September 11, 2001 Michael Ignatieff is responsible for the continuation of the illegal occupation of Afghanistan. You can’t declare a mission of peace by willfully engaging in a war of aggression against a foreign sovereign state.

Since that moment, Ignatieff has been in the crosshairs of his opponents. At the June 10 Liberal party leadership forum, Joe Volpe fired his first shots at Ignatieff, when he to pointed out Ignatieff’s short membership in the party. Bob Rae accused Ignatieff of holding opinions that are too similar to those of the American War Mongering Republicans.

What is perhaps most shocking about Rae’s accusations is that they are frightening true.
Ignatieff’s critics accuse him of supporting the controversial Missile Defense Shield. In “A Generous Helping of Liberal Brains” he writes:

“The government has recently announced its decision about ballistic-missile defence. The decision will be popular in the party. But we need clarity in our national defence policy. We need to balance a principled opposition to the future weaponization of space with an equally principled commitment to participate in North American defence right now. We don’t want our decisions to fracture the command system of North American defence, and we don’t want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty. We must be there, at the table, defending what only we can defend.”"

In short, past agreements not to weaponize space are all well and good. But we need to protect ourselves now. Pragmatic, perhaps. But it is exactly what his critics accuse him of.

Ignatieff’s critics accuse him of supporting the American war in Iraq. In “The Burden”, he writes:

“Those who want America to remain a republic rather than become an empire imagine rightly, but they have not factored in what tyranny or chaos can do to vital American interests. The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike.”

In short, the only hope for the survival of American democracy is to go to war abroad, in places like Iraq.

Ignatieff’s critics aim to expose his anti-Canadian sediments, and accuse him of spending more time in the United States than in Canada. Again, they are right. Harvard may be one heckuva school, but McGill it ain’t. He also writes much of his work under the guise of being an American. Not proud to be Canadian. Do we want a leader who is embarrassed to be recognized as a Canadian? Already he is selling himself as a a pro-American and anti-Canadian.

There is only one area where he tries to sell himself as a Canadian. Ignatieff has, in the course of his writings, questioned the moral nature of torture. While some people may consider this to be inherently dangerous, all Ignatieff has tried to do in this particular situation is explore the definition of torture. In “Evil under Interrogation”, he writes:

“A liberal society that would not defend itself by force of arms might perish, while a liberal society that refused to torture is less likely to jeopardise its collective survival. Besides, there is a moral difference between killing a fellow combatant, in conformity to the laws of war, and torturing a person. The first takes a life; the second abuses one. It seems more legitimate to ask a citizen to defend a state by force of arms and, if necessary, to kill in self-defence or to secure a military objective, than it does to ask him to inflict degrading pain face to face. On this reading of a democratic moral identity, it may be legitimate to kill in self-defence, but not to engage in cruelty.”

The point quickly becomes abundantly clear: torture occurs when someone is treated in a manner that cannot be justified based on their actions. Finally, torture is wrong.

There is no question that those who control the Liberal party leadership — pulling the strings of the “election” process, favor individuals such as Ignatieff. The reasons for this are already well established. For this reason alone, Ignatieff clearly stands head-and-shoulders above his competition — he holds favour with those whose favour he needs.

These are the king makers of the Liberal party. They were the masterminds behind the ascension of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and they imagine the leadership campaign less like an actual campaign, and more like a coronation — where the “crown” of the “natural governing party of Canada” (they have, in fact, controlled the government for all but a handful of the last 100 years) is neatly passed from meticulously pre-selected leader to the next. It is for this reason that Canadians can probably fully expect the crown to be passed along to one of the surviving Trudeau children at some point in the next 20 years. It is indeed a chilling view of Canadian democracy, but one that the Liberal party has been advancing for longer than any living party member can likely attest.

In looking at the list of candidates for the Liberal leadership, Ignatieff is the most qualified, and easily the most charismatic. This is what makes him most dangerous to his competitors and to Canadians.

Certainly, the Liberals are not the only ones who are afraid of Michael Ignatieff. The Conservative party is likely rubbing its hands together in anticipation of lining up against any of the other piss-poor candidates that have been advanced to lead the Liberal party.

But not Ignatieff. Ignatieff is a true threat. He is determined to defeat the Conservatives: “We have an enormous responsibility to defeat the Harper government. We have to understand — we have to make Canadians realize the choice they face. This is a government that has abandoned our environmental commitments. This is a government that has lost and betrayed faith with aboriginal Canadians.”

By supporting Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal party is supporting an anti-Canadian. If we look deeper Michael Ignatieff may very well end up being a much bigger threat than Stephen Harper is. Where Stephen Harper could not achieve by obtaining a majority and handing Canada over to the US leadership Michael Ignatieff may be the one to wipe Canada from the map.

yellow_star_of_david.jpg
The Jewish people have willingly adopted the anti-Jewish symbol as their flag

When the inauguration for the US president takes place on January 20, 2009 Obama might just as well be sworn in as Barack Armageddon Obama. Not even sworn in a the 44th president of the United States of American and he is already making unfounded, unjustified and unprovoked nuclear attack threats against Middle East states.

President-elect Barack Obama intends to offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” in the event of a nuclear strike by Iran, according to a defense source close to the administration quoted by an Israeli newspaper. Despite no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons Obama is continuing off from his war mongering predesessor George W Bush. It was the Bush administration who implied, suggested and tried to fabricate evidence that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons that the Bush White has stated Iran intends to use against Israel. If we look at Bush’s record of lies and fraud it can also be ascertained that the Iran nuclear threat is also a fabrication from a habitual liar.

The Bush administration fabricated intelligence reports that Iraq was seeking to produce nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the Bush administration lied to the American people and to the World in order for them to get the US Congress to authorize an unlawful and unprovoked attack against Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no Saddam and al-Qaeda link. There was no Iraqi threat against the US or neighboring Middle East states. The Bush administration were the ones who declared that Iran was producing a nuclear bomb that they intended to use against Israel. There is no and there never was any evidence to back their new false claim of a weapons of mass destruction threat. When the US public refused to believe the lying Bush and his propaganda the Bush administration and Israel began making nuclear attack threats against Iran. It was Israel and the US who first made the nuclear threat. There was never any threat from Iran nuking Israel. Iran simply stated that they refused to recognize the state of Israel. Is is Israel who is making nuclear threats against Iran and are currently engaging in committing atrocities against the Palestinian people. Israel is engaging in genocide by starving to death the Palestinian people in Gaza. It is Israel who is blocking humanitarian aid that includes foods from the international community. It was Israel who invaded Lebanon. It is Israel who advocates the assassination of all those who oppose their aggression. It is Israel who is committing crimes against humanity by murdering the Palestinian by denying them food. It will be Israel who attacks the US or itself and blame it on Iran.

The government of Israel is evil not the Jewish people. The government of Israel is evil for they have adopted the anti-Jewish symbol as their flag. The government of Israel is evil for their defy Jewish law and murder innocent people. There was not a state of Israel until the allied nations took land from the Palestinians and gave it to the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been deceived. The promised land is not a piece of land, it is their rightful place with God in heaven. Until then Jews were meant to inhabit the entire Earth, not be concentrated within a state surrounded by huge concrete walls with guard towers. The Jewish people do not realize that they are being herded into another concentration camp by their own anti-Jewish leaders. The walls they build are not meant to protect the Jewish people but to enslave and imprison them. It is Nazism all over, deceiving the Jewish people to go to their slaughter. During WWII the Jews were marked for death with the same symbol that they now display as their national flag. When are the Jewish people going to realize that they are being concentrated for slaughter. The Americans, British, French and Soviet nations didn’t want the Jewish people in their countries so they created a state for them by stealing land from the Palestinian. This action is the root of antisemitism.

The day Israel was formed by breaking God’s commands that were given to Moses, was the day that Nazism was reborn. Pro-Nazi government officials in the US and in Israel have been secretly deceiving the Jewish people to willingly leave the US and admit themselves to the concentration camp that is called Israel. Now that a large majority of the Jewish people are behind their concentration camp walls the US and anti-Jewish Israeli officials are planning for their annihilation by provoking anger against the Jewish people - just as the Nazi Germans did. It won’t be Iran attacking the Jewish people with nukes it will be anti-Jewish political leaders within the US and Israeli government. George W Bush has been setting the stage for another Holocaust of the Jewish people. It was suppose to begin when Bush attacked Iraq but instead the Middle East became more anti-American than anti-Jewish. Then Bush tried to do it again by declaring that Iran was seeking to make nuclear weapon to use against Israel. The anti-Jewish Israeli leaders are helping Bush create anger and hate against the Jewish people by falsely declaring that Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They used this fraudulent declaration to terrorize the Jewish people into willingly have a concrete wall encircle them. Now the Jewish people are imprisoned in the largest concentration camp in the World. When the anti-Jewish Americans and Israeli leaders attack Iran using Israeli jets Iran and other Middle East states will retaliate and attack the Jewish people who can’t escape because of the walls that surround them. The walls is the anti-Jews guarantee that the Jewish people will be slaughtered. It is both ironic and a tragedy that the Jewish people will be deceived once again.

Bush_Kazari.jpg

Karzai was a member of the Mujahideen (later renamed al Qaeda by the US) and took active part in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s. The Mujahideen were secretly supplied and funded by the United States, and Karzai was a top contact for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time. He had close personal contact with CIA Director William Casey and George H. W. Bush, who was Vice President of the United States under Ronald Reagan.

When the Taliban emerged in the 1990s, Karzai was at first one of their supporters but later he broke with them and refused to serve as their U.N. ambassador. He lived in exile in Quetta, in Pakistan where he worked to reinstate the Afghan king, Zahir Shah. His father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, was assassinated on July 14, 1999 by the CIA who immediately claimed it was the Taliban . The US killing of his father gained a much needed ally for when the Bush administration was to take power and begin their war of terror. Karzai swore revenge against the Taliban by working with the US to help overthrow them.

In the months following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mujahideen (al Qaeda) loyal to the Northern Alliance and other groups worked with the U.S. military to overthrow the legitimate Taliban government and muster support for a new government (coup)in Afghanistan. In October 2001, Hamid Karzai and his al Qaeda fighters survived an American “friendly fire” missile attack in southern Afghanistan. The group received injuries and were treated in the United States, Karzai received injuries to his facial nerves as can be noticed sometimes during his speeches.

In December 2001, political leaders gathered in Germany to agree on new anti-democratic leadership structures. Under the December 5 Bonn Agreement they formed an interim Transitional Administration and illegally installed Karzai Chairman of a 29-member governing committee. He was illegally sworn-in as leader on December 22. The Loya Jirga of June 13, 2002, appointed Karzai Interim holder of the new position as President of the Afghan Transitional (Traitors) Administration.

On September 20, 2006 Karzai told the United Nations General Assembly that Afghanistan has become the “worst victim” of terrorism. Never mind that he participated in aiding and abetting a foreign country in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Afghanistan, personally directed US military attacks against his own country killing his own countrymen, and continues to claim the presidency of Afghanistan whilst Afghanistan is under military occupation by foreign states. Using the military of a foreign country to attack, destroy your own country and kill your own countrymen is by far the worse act of terrorism and treason. The people are the victims of Hamid Karzai’s betrayal. Hamid Karzai would be swiftly judged by the people of Afghanistan if and when the US ends their unlawful war of aggression and occupation and withdraws their troops from Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan will never be won because the fact is the US, aided by Hamid Karzai, unlawfully attacked a sovereign foreign state and removed the leadership in a coup. There are no opposing army, navy or air force in Afghanistan. There are only true patriotic Afghan citizens defending their country and countrymen through armed resistance against the unlawful attacks and occupation of their country by the US and NATO forces - Just as the French people did when Hitler attacked and occupied their country in WWII.

The attacks by the US against Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. The FBI has found no evidence to link the attacks to Osama bin Laden who the US used as an unjustified, unverified or confirmed excuse to violate the sovereignty of Afghanistan. bin Laden was the patsy for the US war plan that the Bush administration had prepared long before 9/11 with 2 objectives (1) revive the Opium drug trade that the Taliban had literally wiped out and (2) take control of the natural gas pipeline that the legitimate Afghanistan government under the Taliban leadership, were negotiating with foreign countries to build to secure the economic future of Afghanistan and its people. The US lost the bid to build this pipeline so they decided, as poor losers, to attack Afghanistan and take control of natural gas pipeline project - robbing the Afghanistan people of its lucrative economic future. The US has been using both US media and foreign media to spread their propaganda about the Taliban. The Taliban are not terrorists. The Taliban are still the legitimate leaders of Afghanistan who are resisting the unlawful war of aggression by the US and NATO against their sovereign state and people. They are defending their country and people from an unlawful occupation of their country by foreign military forces. The entire international community is negligent in their duty. Every UN member state is duty bound by treaty to prevent and stop any and all wars, aggression and occupations initiated by any aggressive nation. The US have clearly launched a war of aggression against the country of Afghanistan and its people. A foreign state - the US - unlawfully attacked Afghanistan without provocation. The US attacked Afghanistan not out of self-defense but for financial gain - Opium and building and distribution of natural gas. The profits from the illegal Opium drug harvesting and trafficking is being used by the US to finance current and future CIA operations of terrorism against other nations. Al Qaeda is a division of the CIA. Terrorisms is the agenda of the CIA. The CIA is under orders by the US White House to commit acts of terrorism to implement US policies - under the cover of the US war on terror. The CIA is the largest state sponsored terrorist organization in the World. Look at the facts and the evidence and you will find the burden of proof that declares that the US is engaging in wars of aggression, mass murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity with their wars of terror.

“Guantánamo was designed as a law-free zone, a place where the government could do whatever it wanted without having to worry about whether it was legal,” said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney with the Lowenstein Clinic at Yale. “It didn’t take long for that sort of lawlessness to be brought home to our own country. Who knows how much further America would have gone if the Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in to stop incommunicado detentions in 2004?”

War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”, including but not limited to “murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps”, “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war”, the killing of hostages, “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity”

According to an explosive 437-page report released by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), FBI agents assigned to the U.S. prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, compiled what they dubbed a “war crimes” file documenting prisoner abuse and torture by U.S. military and intelligence personnel.

The OIG report on the role of the FBI in observing or participating in prisoner abuse was compiled from a survey of several hundred field level agents and supervisors. FBI protests over these practices traveled up the chain of command and reached the White House–where they were ignored.

Documenting the widespread abuse and torture of detainees by CIA, Pentagon and “private” contractors in the employ of the U.S. Government, the file was initiated in 2002, but was ordered shut down by high level officials at the Bureau and the White House. FBI agents were ordered to stop keeping records of the criminal acts they had witnessed, The New York Times reports.

According to Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane,

The report says that the F.B.I. agents took their concerns to higher-ups, but that their concerns often fell on deaf ears: officials at senior levels at the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council were all made aware of the F.B.I. agents’ complaints, but little appears to have been done as a result. (”Report Details Dissent on Guantánamo Tactics,” The New York Times, May 23, 2008)

Indeed, rather than shutting down the criminal CIA/Pentagon operation at Guantánamo, these sordid practices were exported to Iraq when Camp Delta commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller was ordered by Pentagon officials to “Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib prison.

We cannot let one self serving member of Parliament decide for the entire country especially when that person is clearly the minority. Throughout his campaign he sold himself as the man with strong leadership yet twice he ran to the Governor General when things got tough. The last election was called in order for Stephen Harper to avoid the implication and uncovering of his involvement in the Conservatives’ illegal campaign financing scheme. He brought down Paul Martins’ government for misappropriation of public funding. While he was campaigning to overthrow the Liberal government it was discovered that Stephen Harper was engaging in an-in-and-out money transfer scheme.

Stephen Harper Violates Elections Act with Election Funding Scheme

The minority Conservative government was being investigated by Elections Canada, for election funding irregularities Elections Canada claims that federal Conservatives contravened the Elections Act by an-in-and-out money transfer scheme; Elections Canada estimates that $1.3-million for national advertising was passed through the accounts of at least 67 local candidates in the 2006 election campaign. On August 11-14, Parliamentary Ethics Committee heard witnesses revealing Conservative Party’s funding scheme. Harper called an early election in defiance of the Elections Act, to silence that investigation.

During the 2006 election, the Federal Conservative Party transferred funds to individual candidates who immediately returned the funds to the central office. Under the Elections Act, each candidate has a limited amount of money that can be spent on the election, and each candidate that receives over 10% of the vote is eligible for a rebate from Elections Canada for 60% of the election expenses.

The scheme involved the money that was transferred from the Central Party to the local candidates to be returned within 24 hours to the Central Party. This money was then registered as an expense by the local candidates, thus plumping up each candidate’s expenses, and in the event that the candidate received over 15% of the vote, the candidate would receive an inflated amount of rebate.

On August 11, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to examine “the activities, during the 2006 election, of the Conservative Party of Canada in relation to certain election campaign expenses and ethical standards of public office holders.

“Many Canadians are not aware of the provision in the Election Act for candidates with 15% or more of the vote, they now receive a 60% rebate (previously 50%) for advertising expenses. The Conservative scheme of in-and-out funds recorded as local candidate expenses but spent in national campaigning, in violation of the Elections Act

Stephen Harper - weak anti-democratic leadership

Last week Stephen Harper faced a crisis in regards to his leadership. Instead of facing the crisis as a strong leader he ran like a coward (definition of coward - a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.) to the Governor General to ask her to prevent the majority (the opposition) from asking for his resignation after a majority non-confidence vote. She, for some reason or another, chose to side with one single individual and totally disregarded the will of the majority of Canadians. That decision robbed the Canadian people of their democracy, of their voice in Parliament and of their vote. The majority of Canadians did not vote for Stephen Harper to be Prime Minister of Canada. The majority is the opposition in Parliament. Even after submitting to the Governor General, the signatures of the majority who are not confident in the leadership of Stephen Harper, the Governor General of Canada chose to ignore the will of the majority and broke Parliamentary Law by allowing Stephen Harper to silence the Canadian people and keep his job.

What can our elected officials do to stop Stephen Harper?

On Monday December 8, 2008 I urge all those who were going to vote that they were not confident in Stephen Harper’s leadership to take the vote - to vote on the steps of Parliament. Stephen Harper cannot silence public opinion and the majority will be heard at Parliament, if not in Parliament. Parliament is our voice. If Stephen Harper thinks he can silence the majority of Canadians by locking the doors of Parliament then there is nothing to stop members of Parliament from voicing our will on the steps of Parliament.

Stephen Harper must resign. He has failed as a strong leader. He has failed in gaining the confidence of the people. The Conservative minority government has continuously acted not only as majority government but also as a party above scrutiny. Public opinion is a very strong tool for ousting any member of Parliament who thinks he can steal our voice, our democracy, our rights or our freedoms. As elected members of Parliament it is their duty to represent, to voice the will of the majority. Stand on the steps of Parliament on Monday morning and voice our will publicly for all to see.

A parliament is a legislature, especially in those countries whose system of government is based on the Westminster system modeled after that of the United Kingdom. The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a discussion. The term came to mean a meeting at which such a discussion took place. It acquired its modern meaning as it came to be used for the body of people (in an institutional sense) who would meet to discuss matters of state.

Today Canadian “minority” Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed just how anti-democratic he is by petitioning the Governor General of Canada to suspend parliament. In essence he has silenced the voice of the majority of Canadians. The opposition represents the majority of the Canadian people and out of fear of losing his job as Prime Minister, Stephen Harper violated the very foundation of any democracy by turning his back on the will of the people.

Legislatures called parliaments operate under a parliamentary system of government in which the executive (Prime Minister) is constitutionally answerable to the parliament. A nation’s prime minister (”PM”) is almost always the leader of the majority party in the lower house of parliament, but only holds his or her office as long as the “confidence of the house” is maintained. If members of the lower house lose faith in the leader for whatever reason, they can often call a vote of no confidence and force the PM to resign. Last week the opposition submitted signatures of the majority of members of the lower house stating that the House has lost faith in the leadership of Stephen Harper and were set to vote next Monday for a vote of non confidence, forcing Stephen Harper to resign. It was expected that come Monday such a vote of non-confidence would be introduced, voted on and passed forcing the resignation of Stephen Harper. But today in defiance of the majority the Governor General of Canada was somehow persuaded or threatened to suspend parliament so that Stephen Harper could escape the will of the majority of Canadians as represented by the duly elected majority opposition. Her action, Stephen Harper’s actions are unconstitutional, immoral, unethical, anti-democratic and illegal. Their job is the nation’s interests and will of the people first and foremost. Their own personal agenda or gain has no place in any democratic parliamentary government. In essence Stephen Harper has claimed dictatorial powers by asking for and getting the Governor General of Canada to suspend the voice of the people - parliament. The weather today truly showed what the majority of Canadians felt when Stephen Harper arrogantly declared that he alone has decided for the majority of Canadians. As soon as Stephen Harper appeared to gloat of his anti-democratic accomplishment it started to rain and the rain persisted throughout his condemnation of a free and democratic Canada. Even the heavens could not bear to hear that one man can rob the Canadian people of its democratic voice that is parliament. All of Canada was wounded today. Canada lost its voice and the heavens wept.

vote.jpg
Total elected / leading seat count for Election 2008

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won 143 seats in the last election. The combined seats for the opposition is 165. If Canada were a 2 party nation Harper would not be Prime Minister of Canada as the majority of Canadians voted against Harper. Since we are not a Republic and we don’t have just 2 parties that represent the people of Canada, the results still show that the majority of Canadians voted against Harper. The results also clearly show that Harper has only a minority government. As the majority of Canadians, “democratically” voted to not give Harper a majority then it is the responsibility of the opposition to speak for the majority of Canadians and act accordingly whenever Harper oversteps his minority governing authority. Harper has done just that. So the opposition did what was expected of them in a duly elected Parliamentary system and joined forces (coalition) to present a non-confidence vote against Harper. This is exactly how things are suppose to work in a democratically elected majority opposition of a Parliamentary government. What Harper is doing to force a suspension of government because the majority opposes his governing policies and practices is not democratic. Harper, for some reason or another, thinks he has a majority government, which he doesn’t and he takes action as if he were a president of a Republic, which he isn’t. It would be very wrong for Harper to go once again to the governor general and force a suspension of government.

Harper broke election laws by calling an election on his own when an investigation was started concerning illegal election funding. In case no one noticed the investigation has been swept under the rug as a result of Harper calling for an election 1 year before it was legally to be held - next year. Harper feared he would be implicated in the investigation so he defeated his own government (minority government) by asking the Governor General to break Parliamentary Law and dissolve his minority government. Now Harper is in trouble again and his leadership is at stake so once again he resorts to breaking Parliamentary Law by asking the Governor General to suspend Parliament so that he can survive by averting a legal and democratic non-confidence vote.

The majority of Canadians, as represented by the opposition, are not confident with Harper’s leadership so the majority of Canadians are taking action by having their duly elected representative issue a non-confidence vote against Harper. The majority of Canadians voted against Harper in the last election. The numbers declares this fact. Only the majority can decide when to dissolve government and call a new election. A minority leader - Harper - has no authority in a Parliamentary government to speak for the majority of Canadians. In order for a nation to have a functioning democratic government the will of the “majority” of people must be heard. In the last election the majority of Canadians spoke and voted democratically to not give Harper a majority leadership. The opposition is the majority and since Quebec is still a part of Canada and their citizens are still Canadians their vote of non-confidence against Harper is part of the majority. It is both illegal and undemocratic for Harper to force the Governor General to dissolve government so that Harper can rule as if he had a majority leadership when he has a minority.

silverado.jpg
2008 Chevy Silverado - before 15 mpg city/20 hwy, and after installing a FuelReducer 25 mpg city/28 hwy

It is very hard to be sympathetic to the Big 3 automakers’ financial crisis. They knew that the general public would be migrating to more fuel efficient vehicles years ago yet continued to produce some of most fuel inefficient vehicles on the market today. The warning signs were there years ago yet they chose to build even bigger vehicles which actually lowered the fuel efficiency of their vehicles from the previous year and years. Furthermore none have welcomed any kind of help in gaining back the market share. None have included or endorsed new technology that have proven to increase their vehicles fuel efficiency by 4 to 8 mpg (miles per gallon). One such technology, the FuelReducer has proven time and again that 4 to 8 mpg gain in fuel efficiency is possible for all automakers - both foreign and domestic.

FR-Pro.jpg

For example JD Powers’ web site states that the 2008 Chevy Silverado with a 5.3 liter engine gets 15 mpg city/20 hwy, GM misleadingly rates their truck at 26 mpg. After installing a Fuelreducer the 2008 Chevy Silverado truck is getting 25 city/28 hwy. Established in 1968, J.D. Power and Associates is a global marketing information firm that conducts independent and unbiased surveys of customer satisfaction, product quality and buyer behavior. For years, automotive manufacturers have looked to J.D. Power and Associates research to determine consumer expectations, increase sales and demonstrate a commitment to building quality vehicles that delight consumers.

It looks like the Big 3 automakers are either ignoring market trends or are basing their future sales forecasts on bad advise from marketing research. Either way they have themselves to blame for filing for bankruptcy if they don’t change with the times and the demands of the general public. The FuelReducer is the cheapest and quickest fix to turn things around and gain back lost market shares.

Israel’s prime minister says Washington has not rejected a request by Tel Aviv to take any action it deems “necessary” against Iran.

Ehud Olmert, the outgoing premier, said Tuesday that he had extensively discussed Iran and its nuclear program with “Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the (U.S.) president”.

“There is a basic, deep understanding about the Iranian threat and the need to act in order to remove the threat,” Olmert told reporters.

Israel insists that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Tel Aviv, claiming that Tehran has “plans to build a nuclear weapon.”

Under the allegation, Israeli echelons and army brass have long argued that militarily taking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is a legitimate option.

An earlier report by Time suggested that Washington had expressed its opposition to an Israeli military strike on Iran before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.

“We have been warned off,” the American magazine quoted an Israeli Defense Ministry official as saying.

However, the outgoing Israeli premier dismissed the Time report.

“I don’t remember that anyone in the administration, including in the last couple of days, advised me or any other of my official representatives not to take any action that we will deem necessary for the fundamental security of the state of Israel, and that includes Iran,” said Olmert, who is forced to leave office following a corruption scandal.

On Sunday, in a leaked annual National Security Council assessment, Israeli army chiefs advocated a timely military strike on Iran before a “limited” window of opportunity is missed.

Earlier in July, Texas congressman Ron Paul warned that any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would take place with the explicit backing of the US government.

The outspoken congressman told Press TV that, “No matter what they do, it is our money, it is our weapons, and they are not going to do it without us approving it.”

Olmert’s remarks, meanwhile, suggested that should Israel involve in a military conflict with Iran, there would not be a quarrel between Tel Aviv officials and the Obama administration.

President-elect Obama has vowed to ‘engage in aggressive personal diplomacy’ with Iranian leaders to resolve the controversy surrounding the country’s nuclear program.

Iranian officials insist that the country’s nuclear activities are solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology, adding that under the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Tehran is entitled to uranium enrichment.

No one has even looked into whether or not the banks are really failing as they claim to be in order to get $billions from the government. The bailout is, if anyone ever bothered to investigate, a massive con job. It is a swindle. It is money laundering. It is the Bush administration defrauding the people of the United States of America. How can it be proven that the Bailout is an elaborate scheme to swindle, money launder and defraud the US people? The answer is the same as when the government goes after an individual suspected of failing to declare income and failing to pay taxes. The answer is an audit - An examination of records or financial accounts to check their accuracy. If the banks were truly in trouble then an audit would clearly show it. If the banks are conspiring with the Bush administration to swindle, money launder and defraud the people of the US out of $trillions then an audit would also reveal their crimes. A few banks failing isn’t suspicious. Every major bank in the US failing is suspicious - a conspiracy.

Dictionary: conspiracy (kən-spîr’ə-sē)

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

kickback.jpg

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting taxpayers were preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson’s transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride–a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public’s money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

Paulson’s bailout staff is heavily populated with Goldman Sachs veterans and individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet we do not know whether these financiers have fully divested their own Wall Street holdings. Were they perhaps enriching themselves as they engineered this generous distribution of public wealth to embattled private banks and their shareholders?

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging letter sent to Paulson. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public’s money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities–preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett’s preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett “received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms,” Gerard pointed out.

“I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett’s investment,” the union president wrote. “In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal–50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift–is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy.”

The Steelworkers’ close analysis was done by Ron W. Bloom, director of the union’s corporate research and a Wall Street veteran himself who worked at Larzard Freres, the investment house. Bloom applied standard valuation techniques to establish the market price Buffett paid per share compared to Treasury’s price. “The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to,” Bloom’s report explained. “It also assumes that Gold Sachs’ job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could…. Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett–if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents–that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs.”

The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: “If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions–which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return–you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions.”

If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson’s grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers “to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years.”

US Criminal Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 63 > § 1341
§ 1341. Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Bailout is nothing more than the Bush administration engaging in money laundering.

Money laundering is the process used to disguise the source of money or assets derived from criminal activity. Money laundering facilitates corruption and can destabilize the economies of susceptible countries. It also compromises the integrity of legitimate financial systems and institutions, and gives organized crime the funds it needs to conduct further criminal activities. It is a global phenomenon, and the techniques used are numerous and can be very sophisticated. Technological advances in e-commerce, the global diversification of financial markets and new financial product developments provide further opportunities to launder illegal profit and obscure the money trail leading back to the underlying crime.

While the techniques for laundering funds vary considerably and are often highly intricate, there are generally three stages in the process:

* Placement: involves placing the proceeds of crime in the financial system;
* Layering: involves converting the proceeds of crime into another form and creating complex layers of financial transactions to disguise the audit trail and the source and ownership of funds (e.g., the buying and selling of stocks, commodities or property); and,
* Integration: involves placing the laundered proceeds back in the economy under a veil of legitimacy.

If you were to take a closer look at the Bush Paulson Bailout you would see that this scheme is the Bush administration engaging in money laundering. The Bush administration is giving $billions to an intermediary (the US banks receiving the deceptively named bailout funding) who are already legitimately taking in large amounts of cash. The intermediary (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase …) would then deposit that money into an account, take a premium, and write a cheque to the Bush administration. Thus, the Bush administration draws no attention to themselves, and can deposit $billions into a bank account without drawing suspicion.

Rushing to rescue Citigroup, the government agreed to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in possible losses at the stricken bank and to plow a fresh $20 billion into the company.

Citigroup was deeply involved with the financing of Terrorist Cells in the United States and paid those involved in the 9-11 WTC, World Trade Center Attack on America. Citigroup is the financial headquarters for Al Qaeda.

American Insurance General, who received 12 subpoenas from New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, in connections to the 9-11 WTC financial accounts, is tied to Citigroup. Marty Greenberg who resigned as CEO of AIG the day the subpoenas were issued worked for Millman’s cut out front company Meyer Blinder, the Worlds Largest Penny Stock Brokerage that collapsed in 1990-1991. MDC Holdings, Inc., operated National Brokerage Group of Companies in the 1980s where Maurice Greenberg was deeply involved with Iran Contra activities, money laundering, stock frauds and manipulations tied to Silverado Saving where Neil Bush was a Director.

George H. W. Bush and Leonard Millman’s Citigroup financed the attack on The United States of America on Sept 11, 2001, known as 9-11, World Trade Center. This is part of The New World Order plan. Adolph Hitler first coined the phrase The New World Order. When George H. W. Bush was President, Bush re-coined the phrase The New World Order in several speeches. Since Prescott Bush, George W. Bush’s the White House Occupant’s grandfather, financed Adolph Hitler during World War 11 through Brown Bothers-Harriman and was charged with Trading with the Enemy Act.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, President George W. Bush has proclaimed that Washington will now clamp down on the money laundering that funds terrorist organizations. But the White House has, so far, only frozen assets of foreign businesses, all of them from the Arab regions. The executive branch continues to allow impunity and corruption by U.S. financial powers, even as it grandstands against the terror-money trail.

Congress, however, has stood up to take on the real power-behind-the-terror-throne: United States banking and financial interests. The Washington Post reported that “Some of the nation’s largest banks — including Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. — are lobbying to change key provisions of proposed money-laundering legislation.”

The Washington Post reports:

Citigroup and other big banks want to change the wording of a provision that would require banks to actively monitor transactions they conduct for their wealthiest clients — “private banking” customers — and for clients of other banks — “correspondent banking” services, sources said.
The banks want to include language that would give the secretary of the Treasury the authority to exempt U.S. banks from having to exercise enhanced oversight when doing business with banks from countries that have weak money-laundering laws, an industry lawyer familiar with the lobbying effort said.
In addition, Citigroup executive Rick Small has proposed language that would soften a provision barring U.S. banks from doing business with offshore shell banks that have no physical office and no affiliation with an established bank. Until recently, Small was one of the Federal Reserve Board’s top money-laundering experts. He didn’t return calls.

Each of these three areas of Citigroup’s business - Private Banking, Correspondent Banking, and relations with Offshore Shell Banks - are keys to a system in which U.S. banks have been allowed to virtually monopolize the drug money trade. While U.S. authorities rail about “drug dealers,” “cartels” and “narco-guerrillas,” the true kingpins of the illegal drug trade are the banks and institutions that launder the drug money and hoard the profits. It is precisely for them that drug prohibition exists, and that governments protect them by prosecuting the lower levels of the illicit drug trade.

Barack Obama has already made his first big mistake and he isn’t even in the Oval Office of the White House yet. I guess his campaign slogan of change only meant a change of who is head of the United States. It would appear that the US people are going to get more of the same from Obama. More corruption. More wars. More unemployment. More economic crisis. By selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State he has chosen a criminal to be the face of America to the World. Hillary is still facing indictment for the biggest FEC fraud in US history. She took $millions in campaign contributions from one Peter Paul and failed to report it. The Bush and Clinton families are both drug smugglers and traffickers. Clinton was named in the Mena drug smuggling operation out of Mena, Arkansas.

The press focuses on two-bit scandals of little importance, such as internal oral sex, Whitewater and the ridiculous travel office “scandal”, while ignoring much more significant dirt, such as the Hillary’s $100,000 commodity profit from a $1,000 investment, and murky but more substantial affairs such as the Mena, Arkansas contra supply and drug operation. Mena actually began with George HW Bush and Oliver North, and implicates the Clintons much more than the President.

It’s well established that both weapons for the Contras and cocaine were smuggled through the small, obscure airport in Mena, Arkansas during the 1980s and late 1970s. when Clinton was governor during part of this time. The Contra operation was run by the Reagan/Bush White House with the Clintons accommodating them.

On October 5, 1986 in Nicaragua, a CK123 Cargo plane, with weapons and CIA employees on board crashed. This was the start of the Iran-Contra affair. It was proven that the weapons were supplied by the CIA and destined for the Nicaraguan Contras in of the Congressional Poland amendments. Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh spent six years determining who in the Reagan administration was involved in the operation. Among those that were involved in this operation were George HW Bush, Oliver North, Dewey Clarridge, John Pointdexter and Caspar Weinberger.

However, lets go to Mena, Arkansas during this time. The training of pilots and loading of weapons and drugs was taking place. Who was the governor of Arkansas at the time and why is is that Kenneth Starr would not touch this area. That governor at the time Bill Clinton.

In July 1994, in the Arkansas Crime Inc. paper, an editorial linked Clinton to Iran-Contra. In October, 1994 Clinton denied any knowledge of the operation at Mena. Shortly afterwards evidence started to surface that documented Clinton’s link to Iran-Contra. People began coming forward and alleging under sworn statements that that Clinton profited from the operation at Mena by laundering money through the newly created Arkansas Development Finance Authority. That was just the tip of the iceberg regarding what was really going on at Mena. A larger number of people testified under oath that the airplanes returning from Central America were loaded with cocaine, which was then dropped over Arkansas for distribution to larger U.S. cities.

During 1995, mounting documented evidence continued to support the Mena claims. The picture of the Mena operation became more clear. In July 1995, new information and evidence confirms drug smuggling is going on at Mena. Why? Because a State Trooper L.D. Brown and a Arkansas National Guardsmen, who were also pilots flying the planes put Clinton in the loop by testifying. In July 1995, Clinton responded to L.D. Brown’s account with denial. We’ve heard that before. In October, 1995 in formal hearings, now a former State Trooper, L.D. Brown elaborates in great detail, on his flights to Central America in the service of the CIA, on Clinton’s link to the CIA. He also details the negative treatment he received from the American press. In August, 1996, Noriega attacks George HW Bush on Contra Drug dealing. And who is Barry Seal? How could this go on for years without detection? In February, 1995, the Washington Post is accused of a grand scale political coverup of the Mena affair. However, a statement issued by Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson at this time reveals government efforts to block investigations of the Mena affair and investigations of Clinton’s fraudulent Whitewater loans, and explains how business interests, news media, politicians, and courts in Arkansas manage to block the truth from coming out. Who is Terry Reed? Terry Reed describes how CNN concocted an interview with him, misquoting him all over place. In June, 1995, the Washington Post suppresses another story about the Mena investigations. In November, 1996, Caspar Weinberger is accused of participation in the Iran-Contra affair. However, prior to that in December, 1995, documents prove that the U.S. Government pressured Costa Rica to keep the Mena operations secret. Who Is Richard Ben-Veniste?

During this time, a Democrat Panel on money laundering, indicts brother of Mike Espy for money laundering. And the State Department accuses Noreiga of taking drug money.

This is where Terry Reed comes into the picture I mentioned earlier. Terry Reed testifies. Terry Reed is a pilot and a subcontractor who worked for the CIA Iran-Contra operation. When he discovered that drugs were shipped to the U.S., ( the MENA operators) he left the operation in disgust. He soon found himself and his family the target of a retaliation lawsuit claiming insurance fraud. However, the Reed family was cleared of the allegations in federal court in Wichita, Kansas. Shortly thereafter, the Reed family filed a civil suit against those who had brought the wrongful suit against them. Two employees of Bill Clinton, Buddy Young and Tommy Baker were charged with fabrication of evidence and other civil rights violations against the Reed’s. In September, 1995 Buddy Young is linked to the Iran-Contra/Mena operation. Clinton’s former security chief, now a defendant in Reed’s Mena trial, appears to have been more involved than previously known. After years of a legal circus, the lawsuit by the Reed family finally began in earnest in late1995. Depositions were taken from a number of people and they all told the same story under oath. They also revealed that U.S. senators (both parties) tried to block investigations into money laundering at Mena. All of these witnesses have suffered harassment and intimidation because of their explosive testimony. In early 1996, the judge in the case ruled to suppress all evidence relating to Mena, CIA, and the Clintons from the trial. Reed discouraged at this point, gave up and dropped the trial. One honest policeman, Russell Welch supplied much of the material and proof of the Mena case, he too has suffered harassment and intimidation. Who is Julius “Doc” Delaughter. It is December, 1995. Delaughter appears on a British Mena documentary, telling about the whole Mena operation, however it is banned from distribution in the U.S. Remember Barry Seal, ( read the article by Daniel Hopsicker for Washington Weekly ), he comes out of the closet too. Also a certain lady is found in Florida connecting all this. In April, 1996, there is a massive Anthrax poisoning case in Mena and in August, 1996, State Trooper L.D. Brown is ordered to assassinate Terry Reed. And the CIA begins an investigation, (interesting, they are investigating their own operation?) of the Mena operation. The White House is asked about it, and they deny everything. At this same time, Reed drops the lawsuit and the murder of two teenage boys, Don Henry and Kevin Ives occurs in Benton, a town near Mena. Due to persistent parents and a few honest Arkansas policemen, their murders are traced back to the drug smuggling operations at Mena. A British documentary exposes the murders and the link to Mena. No U.S. major news network picks this story up.

In July, 1996, Kenneth Starr begins asking questions about Mena. He follows the trail of facts, but suddenly announces that Mena is outside his brief and scope of just the Whitewater investigation of Clinton.

In the fall of 1995, several committees in the House of Representatives began considering holding hearings about the Mena operation and started interviewing witnesses. To this date, this hearing has never finished and they have not called any more witnesses.

Dan Lasater testified in May, 1996 before the Whitewater Committee about his the Whitewater/Clinton mess. Now, during this time we have the Bosnia war going on and the CIA is backing and sending guns there. Is this a repeat of the Iran-Contra affair with drugs? In the fall of 1996, events took an amazing turn. The San Jose Mercury News reported on a drug trial in Los Angeles where informants testified that they had sold drugs to LA street gangs in order to finance the CIA-backed Contra war in Nicaragua in the 1980s. The drugs came from the Mena, Arkansas operations they testified. The story grabbed the headlines and incited the black community. It was soon realized that what was seen in Los Angeles was just another tentacle of what had already been uncovered in Mena, Arkansas. Now the CIA, the Justice Department, Congress and the White House were all asked for explanations. Mushrooming beyond control, the Mena scandal had finally reached the headlines of the mainstream media a decade after the events took place. September, 1996 CIA Director Deutch resigns. Also there are reports of the U.S. Government involved with Bolivian cocaine lab. There are a string of murders of Americans surrounding the lab in Bolivia. Senator Barbara Boxer, California, writes a letter to CIA Director John Deutch demanding all truth of events. He responds negatively. Senator Diane Feinstein write a letter tp Attorney General Janet Reno requesting a full investigation and Senator Mazxine Waters request for hearings to Chairman Henry Hyde. This was September, 1996 and to date, nothing has been done regarding this matter. Why? Because I believe this has been the greatest government cover-up that has ever occurred. The reason, both parties are up to their ears with the Bush / Clinton Mena affair.

More recently New York state’s new Attorney General Dennis Vacco (a Republican) is investigating a $100,000 in payments to Hillary or the Rose Law Firm from the National Center on Education and the Economy, a charity that was in Rochester New York and has since moved to Washington, DC

Hillary was on their board, as were Mario Cuomo and Ira Magaziner, but no other board members were paid. The justification is that Hillary was paid to carry out some programs. When this story came out, Vacco announced he was asking for contracts with Hillary or the Rose Law Firm and a description of any work she actually did.

EV1.jpg
$billions wasted by GM - scraps all popular EV1 cars

The Big 3 automakers have only themselves to blame for their financial woes. They have known for years that they will lose business to import auto makers. They have known for years exactly why they will lose business but out of arrogance have refused to revise their designs and most importantly their vehicle’s fuel efficiency. The main reason why people are dumping the Big 3 in favor of imports is “fuel efficiency”. The imports are more fuel efficient than the GM, Ford or Chrysler vehicles. They know that yet have done nothing to increase fuel efficiency. For years their mentality is bigger is better and horsepower rules. Well times have changed and they haven’t. Imports have all the horsepower the consumer wants and with greater fuel efficiency.

Ford had the market in the palm of its hand back in the 1930s with the tested and proven 200 mpg Pogue carburetor. What did they do with this technology? They bought the patent from the inventor and buried it. GM also had a very fuel efficient vehicle - the EV1. Despite the popularity of the GM EV-1 and waiting lists for the high-tech vehicle, General Motors terminated their customers’ leases and sent the cars to the jaws of a crusher. GM spent more than $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1 only to send it all to the scrap heap. GM also dug its own grave the last few years with extensive renovations and new building of car dealerships all across Canada and the US. At the same time they knew consumers were dumping their vehicles for more fuel efficient vehicles they spent $billions on construction.

Arrogance is also evident when the Big 3 ignore help from the general public - new and upcoming inventors. One such inventor came up with a very simple device that over the past 2 years has proven that it adds an average 5 mpg to all the Big 3 automakers’ vehicles but GM, Ford and Chrysler refuses to meet with and accept the help offered by the inventor. A number of times the inventor (now living in the greater Toronto area) has written to GM, Ford and Chrysler to offer a no risk solution to their financial woes. Offering GM, Ford and Chrysler’s customers the option of buying and installing a FuelReducer on their vehicles to increase their vehicle’s fuel efficiency with an added 5 mpg is the simplest and most cost effective solution. Just by increasing the fuel efficiency of their vehicles by an average of 5 mpg with the FuelReducer their customers will stay loyal to them. Adding 8 mpg to the Dodge Dakotas was proven possible just by installing a FuelReducer.

Fuel efficiency is the root of the Bug 3 problems so doesn’t it make sense to address the problem instead of ignoring it? Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. Ignoring the public demand won’t get them out of bankruptcy no matter how many $billions are thrown their way. It is arrogant to ignore your customers’ demands and continue making fuel guzzling vehicles. They can all still make monster trucks and muscle cars but they can do it more fuel efficiently.

The United States has is reported to have reinstituted its “Operation Plowshare” programme and detonated a series of hydrogen bomb explosions in the Arctic in an attempt to locate what these American’s claim are vast undersea oil and gas deposits belonging to their Nation.

Though the exact number of hydrogen bombs exploded during these tests by the United States are not mentioned in these reports one Canadian researcher, Zuerrnnovahh-Starr Livingstone, has stated that their were possibly 9 nuclear explosions detected, and as we can read:

Zuerrnnovahh-Starr Livingstone Report
November 18, 2008

On November 17 and 18, 2008 nine H-Bombs were exploded below the Arctic Ocean near the North Magnetic Pole. I was unable to transfer this info from the IRIS Seismic Monitor, so I copied this information longhand and typed it back onto my computer.

DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE MAGNITUDE DEPTH (Kilometers)

17 Nov 2008 12:55:23 UT 79.66 -116.86 5.7 10.0
17 Nov 2008 13:16:51 79.70 -115.78 4.7 10.0
17 Nov 2008 13:40:11 79.70 -115.36 5.1 10.0
17 Nov 2008 17:17:05 79.70 -115.78 4.7 10.0
18 Nov 2008 03:59:49 79.61 -114.76 5.6 10.0
18 Nov 2008 04:10:35 79.76 -115.70 5.1 10.0
18 Nov 2008 04:52:51 79.74 -115.32 5.3 10.0
18 Nov 2008 05:37:27 79.75 -115.33 4.9 10.0
18 Nov 2008 07:05:12 79.78 -114. 69 4.7 10.0

The North Magnetic Pole is about 80 degrees North and 104 degrees West and follows a circular 50 kilometer path each day. This area is north of Banks Island near the edge of the continental shelf and edging into the deeper waters of the Arctic Ocean. It is within Canadian waters.

Checking IRIS WILBER system of seismographic readings I was able to see the distinctive peaks of underground nuclear explosions. No small tremors leading to the major event and few if any aftershocks. The area is seismically stable. None of the blasts appeared to trigger sympathetic tremors. The explosions were concentrated in an area about 16 kilometers by 16 kilometers (10 miles by 10 miles). The explosions were in the 5 to 10 Megaton range. All were 10 kilometers deep (6.2 miles).

Such a concentration of explosions punched a hole in the crust and will allow petroleum from the bottom of the crust to leak into the Arctic Ocean. This could destroy life in large sections of the Arctic Ocean.

These reports state the force of these explosions were equal to 0.212E+01-0.671E+02 levels of the US atomic bomb dropped upon the Japanese city of Hiroshima which corresponds to levels of magnitude on the Richter Scale of 5.0-6.0 in earthquake measurements, and which fall within the established parameters of both the United States Operation Plowshare

AbuGhraibTorture-715244.jpg
Evidence that the US does torture

Barack Obama’s incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.

Two Obama advisers said there’s little - if any - chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.

Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, “In the United States, no.”

“These things are not going to happen,” said Leahy, D-Vt.

“I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture, and I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” Obama said Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.”

It looks like more of the same with Obama as president. More injustice. More torturing. More wars of aggression. More war crimes. Did Obama not see the pictures and read the reports written by FBI agents who have investigated and concluded that torture was and is still being used by the US - ordered by the US White House?

“Both for policy and political reasons, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time hauling people up before Congress or before grand juries and going over what went on,” Litt said at a Brookings Institution discussion about Obama’s legal policy. “To as great of an extent we can say, the last eight years are over, now we can move forward - that would be beneficial both to the country and the president, politically.”

But Michael Ratner, a professor at Columbia Law School and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said prosecuting Bush officials is necessary to set future anti-torture policy.

“The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it,” Ratner said. “I don’t see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable.”

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits taxing Peter (the people) to pay Paul (Wall Street executives). There are constitutional principles, however, that speak to values such as oversight and transparency. The system of checks and balances abhors a blank check.

Secretary Paulson’s Bailout (Bonus plan) contains a sweeping provision that utterly strips the courts of any power to review his decisions. Section 8 of the Paulson proposal reads: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

In contrast, an alternative bailout bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, has a very different clause. The Dodd proposal reads: “Any determination by the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act … shall not be set aside unless such determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.” In other words, the Treasury secretary’s determinations can be challenged on legal grounds. The Dodd version goes on to recite that “the terms of a residential mortgage loan that is part of any purchase by the Secretary under this Act shall remain subject to all claims and defenses that would otherwise apply notwithstanding the exercise of authority by the Secretary or Corporation under this Act.”

United States Constitution
Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bailout clearly violates Federal Reserve Act

Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act ( Act ), originally enacted as part of the Banking Act of 1933, is designed to prevent the misuse of a bank’s resources through non-arm’s-length transactions with its affiliates and to limit the ability of a bank to transfer its federal subsidy to its affiliates.

The Charter of the UN is clear; the organisation’s highest purpose is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And “Armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest”. There exists no common interest to do what the US has done in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Since September 11 2001 the Security Council has lost colossal legitimacy due to a number of resolutions that have been passed. The tragic new interpretation of International Law itself and the implementation of it has seriously undermined the foundation of a system constructed to handle international conflicts. The principles and conventions developed in the post-Westphalian era have been damaged due to paranoid policies of revenge after the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre - attacks that to this day have not even been criminally investigated nor has there ever been any evidence presented that Afghanistan or Iraq were responsible for the attacks.

This loss of legitimacy is naturally more obvious among the 1,300 million Muslims in the world. They are about to loose confidence in an organisation in which 80 per cent of the permanent members of the supreme body are Roman Catholic (Anti-Christ) countries. Seen from their vantage point, the Four Permanent members possess, if you will, Anti-Christian bombs and share the basic Roman image of the world that “the others” are either with us or they are against us and must be exterminated.

When the UN accepted to use International Law and not Criminal Law for the reaction to September 11, it opened doors that will be (mis)used by many actors in the future. Up until then, political and violent crimes had been handled by the police and not by the military. This shift is very dangerous. Then the U.S. decided, and the UN accepted, to use the principle of “self defence”, but with a delay of almost a month (September 11 to October 7). In the field of Criminal Law, this would resemble that the attacked escapes from the attacker, locate him a month later and (with a bunch of friends) exercise his “self-defence” out of proportion to the first crime committed.

A mandate is no comfort; no UN mandate is the better option

It is as if a “UN mandate” serves to make some people feel better about this war. The Swedish government, as an example of a country whose solidarity with the UN has never been questioned, seems to hope that it will not be forced to criticise the United States. Because, if there is such a UN mandate, it would be possible for Sweden to say, “well, we don’t like wars, but this one has a UN mandate, and therefore it is acceptable to us.” The Danish government, still the head of the EU for a few more days, has declared that it is willing to participate directly in the war if there is such a mandate.

There are two important arguments against a UN “mandate”. Firstly, if there is no such mandate, it will be considerably more difficult for many member states to accept it or go along with it. That is, the United States would rather stand alone and carry the major burden of a political, legal and moral disaster. Secondly, it would save the UN from being dragged down into the quagmire called bombing, invasion, occupation and control of Iraq - not to mention the humanitarian consequences and the resources needed to rebuild the country physically, as well as psychologically. With no UN mandate, the UN could say “not in our name” and remain a genuine peace organisation true to the words and the spirit of its charter.

To put it simply, if George W. Bush and the people around him want to destroy Iraq, they should go it alone. The UN must never be misused to legitimate bellicose policies of any member state. The UN can hardly survive with repeated humiliation as has been the case in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

The UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq represent an even more dodgy new interpretation. This time the act of self-defence will be carried out years before the attacked assesses that he could, perhaps, be hit, i.e. pre-emptively. Unfortunately for the UN, international law holds no provisions for such pre-emptive policies or wars. They are found only in recent strategic documents from the Bush regime. Even worse, they contain a philosophical demolition of the principles of deterrence that enables the United States to use weapons of mass-destruction against countries that are not known to possess such weapons but are judged to be able to possess them some time into the future.

In short, instead of moving towards general and complete disarmament world-wide, or the abolition of all WMD (Weapons of Mass-Destruction) we are moving from MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to the fundamentally immoral and destabilising NUTs (Nuclear Use Theories).

Despite the recent surge of attention to the U.S.-Iraqi negotiations over an agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years into the future, the resulting agreement or lack of agreement is likely to have little actual impact on the occupation. The negotiations are being conducted by representatives of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — neither of whom actually want the U.S. troops to leave (Maliki’s government would not likely survive the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and Bush remains committed to permanent U.S. control of Iraq, its oil, and its strategic location for U.S. military bases).

But both Bush and Maliki face political and electoral pressures to posture as if they do want a timetable for troop withdrawal. As a result, most of the negotiations seem to have focused less on substantive disagreements between the two sides, and more on finding language that disguises the reality of continued occupation and U.S. domination, with politically acceptable language extolling Iraqi sovereignty.

The negotiations are officially aimed at producing a bilateral agreement between the United States and the U.S. occupation-backed Iraqi government that would set the terms for how U.S. and “coalition” troops would continue to occupy and wage war in Iraq. The urgency surrounding the negotiations is based on the looming expiration of the current United Nations mandate for the so-called “multinational force” (diplo-speak for the U.S.-led occupation) on December 31, 2008. The goal is to create an agreement between Washington and Baghdad that would replace that mandate. Even The New York Times agrees that if there is no agreement in place after December 31st, and the Security Council has not extended the mandate, the U.S. troops occupying Iraq would have no legal basis for their presence; legally, they would have to be pulled back to their bases and quickly withdrawn from the country.

The fact is the U.S. invaded Iraq illegally. It’s unlikely that the government would end its occupation because of a technicality like acknowledged illegality. And those forces fighting against the U.S.-led occupation, both the resistance forces targeting the U.S. occupation alone and those extremists also committing terrorist acts against Iraqi civilians, are unlikely to stop fighting because of a new or renewed illegal document; they are fighting against a hated foreign occupation, and will likely continue to do so regardless of diplomatic niceties.

If the agreement fails it would mean official recognition by governments, inter-governmental institutions, and other international diplomatic entities of the illegality of the U.S. occupation. That would constitute a huge advance for global anti-war forces, including in the U.S. So challenging the legitimacy of any new agreement is a continuing obligation.

Article 25 of the draft agreement describes “withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,” and the first paragraph states that “the U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories no later than December 31, 2011.” Later in the same article, there are references to “combat troops” being withdrawn from Iraqi cities and regrouped in U.S. bases by June 2009, but the initial commitment to the December 31, 2011 withdrawal doesn’t specify “combat” troops. It appears this was likely one of the demands of the Iraqi government, aware that the Iraqi parliament, let alone the population, would certainly reject the kind of partial withdrawal, of “combat troops” only, that is being defined as ending the war in U.S. electoral discourse.

But the existence of that text doesn’t indicate a serious U.S. commitment to a timetable for full withdrawal of all troops, even by the end of 2011. Paragraph 5 of the same article explicitly authorizes the Iraqi government to request U.S. forces to remain in Iraq — for “the purposes of training and support of the Iraqi security forces.” Such “support” of the U.S.-trained, U.S.-armed, and still U.S.-dependent Iraqi military could in practice mean any military action the Pentagon wants to carry out. Paragraph 5 goes on to say that “the Iraqi government might ask for an extension of paragraph 1 of this article” — an extension of the 2011 withdrawal deadline.

So the whole idea of a deadline is a politically driven fraud. It’s not coincidental that when the Bush administration appeared to give in on the once-rejected idea of a timeline, the actual description was that of a “time horizon” — very beautiful, perhaps, but you could never get there.

There are similar wiggle-word descriptions of how U.S. troops would have to get approval from the military Iraqi in a joint coordination committee for military operations. As to the detention of Iraqis, U.S. troops are required to hand over detainees to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours — unless the detention “was based on an Iraqi decision in accordance with Iraqi law.”

laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank.jpg
Goldman Sachs.CEO (acting Secretary of the Treasury) Henry Paulson, George W Bush and Federal Reserve (A PRIVATE COMPANY) Ben Bernanke conspire to defraud the US people

Bank fraud is the use of fraudulent means to obtain money, assets, or other property owned or held by a financial institution. In many instances, bank fraud is a criminal offense. While the specific elements of a particular banking fraud law vary between jurisdictions, the term bank fraud applies to actions that employ a scheme or artifice, as opposed to bank robbery or theft.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code. 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Bank Fraud Statute) states:

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or

(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

The Bank of America proposed creating a Federal Homeowner Preservation Corporation that would buy up billions of dollars in troubled mortgages at a deep discount, forgive debt above the current market value of the homes and use federal loan guarantees to refinance the borrowers at lower rates. Bank of America began initiating the bank fraud scheme by declaring it will write-down up to $6.5 billion for mortgage-related losses when it announced its quarterly earnings at the end of April 2008. (declaring a loss even thought they knew that Bank of America would post a profit for the quarter.) As a direct result of Bank of America declaring non-existing losses Lehman Brothers, one of the most prestigious players on Wall Street, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday September 15 2008.

Lehman expanded aggressively into property-related investments, including so called sub-prime mortgages - loans to people on low incomes or with poor credit histories. The bank has lost $14bn in the past 18 months after being forced to take huge write-downs on the value of those investments. The collapse of Lehman – one of the biggest financial shocks in years - puts tens of thousands of jobs around the world at risk. The fall of Lehman and the convenient buyout of Merrill Lynch by Bank Of America the day after Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection set the stage for the US Government bailout. Soon after everyone was declaring it was going bankrupt - as a direct result of the Bank of America bank fraud scheme of write-down on the value of their sub-prime mortgages. All were reporting quarterly profits up until Bank of American threw in it’s $6.5 billion suicide bomb.

Bank of America used a falsified accounting to initiate the bank fraud scheme

In order to hide serious financial problems, some businesses have been known to use fraudulent bookkeeping to overstate sales and income, inflate the worth of the company’s assets or state a profit when the company is operating at a loss. These tampered records are then used to seek investment in the company’s bond or security issues or to make fraudulent loan applications in a final attempt to obtain more money to delay the inevitable collapse of an unprofitable or mismanaged firm. Bank of America simply declare that it was in trouble when they weren’t. They used fraudulent bookkeeping to state a loss when the company is operating at a profit. These tampered records were used to devalue the net worth of financial institutes like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. By doing so Bank of America was able to buy Merrill Lynch at a fraction of its true value. Bank of American would not have been able to scoop up these bargain basement deals unless it engaged in this bank fraud scheme. Now thanks to the securities fraud of Bank of America other major banking institutions are the target of hostile takeover by the US government. Hostile takeovers made possible as a direct result of the Bank of America bank fraud scheme of write-down on the value of their sub-prime mortgages.

The proof is in the Earnings reports of companies now in the sights of the US government $700 billion BUYOUT Scheme.

Mar 23rd 2008 Earnings Report

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) posted better-than-expected first-quarter earnings.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) posted better-than-expected first-quarter earnings. - up 39.1 percent
Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) posted better-than-expected first-quarter earnings.
Credit Suisse Group (NYSE: CS) warned that it expects a first-quarter loss due to write-downs.

Lehman Brothers, 2007 Annual Report

Over the past five years, Investment Banking revenues have grown by 23%, Equities Capital Markets by 40%, and Investment Management by 36%. During this same period, Asia has grown by 38% and Europe by 36%. Our revenues have never been more evenly balanced across our businesses, and we have achieved our best-ever geographic diversification, with half of the Firm’s revenues generated outside the Americas

Total assets ▲ US$691.063 Billion (2007)

Merrill Lynch

Total assets ▲ US$ 1.020 Trillion (2007) Bought by Bank of America for just $50 billion

How else could such giants be bought for pennys on the dollars? Is everyone in the financial market that stupid that they can’t see that this is the biggest bank fraud in US history? Connect the dots. Follow the money trail and you will see that the Bank of America and the people of the Bush administration have conspired to use $700 billion of your money to fraudulently “BUYOUT” you banks and your mortgages. They have schemed to take your property and money. They are going to show up at your door and offer you $1 for your $400,00 house and either you take it or face their foreclosure. Doesn’t make any sense but that is exactly what they intend on doing.

Dictionary: swindle (swĭn’dl)
1. To cheat or defraud of money or property.
2. To obtain by fraudulent means: swindled money from the company.

Two former British military officers are expected to give crucial evidence against Georgia when an international inquiry is convened to establish who started the country’s bloody five-day war with Russia in August.

Ryan Grist, a former British Army captain, and Stephen Young, a former RAF wing commander, are said to have concluded that, before the Russian bombardment began, Georgian rockets and artillery were hitting civilian areas in the breakaway region of South Ossetia every 15 or 20 seconds.

Their accounts seem likely to undermine the American-backed claims of President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia that his little country was the innocent victim of Russian aggression and acted solely in self-defence.

During the war both Grist and Young were senior figures in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The organisation had deployed teams of unarmed monitors to try to reduce tension over South Ossetia, which had split from Georgia in a separatist struggle in the early 1990s with Russia’s support.

On the night war broke out, Grist was the senior OSCE official in Georgia. He was in charge of unarmed monitors who became trapped by the fighting. Based on their observations, Grist briefed European Union diplomats in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, with his assessment of the conflict.

Grist, who resigned from the OSCE shortly afterwards, has told The New York Times it was Georgia that launched the first military strikes against Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital.

“It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” he said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”

Georgia attacked South Ossetia on the night of August 7-8. In the afternoon an OSCE patrol had seen Georgian artillery and Grad rocket launchers massing just outside the enclave. At 6pm the monitors were told of suspected Georgian shelling of a village.

Georgia declared a unilateral ceasefire. But at 11pm it announced that Georgian villages were being shelled and began a military operation to “restore constitutional order” in South Ossetia.

Soon afterwards the Georgian bombardment of Tskhinvali began. By 12.35am the OSCE monitors had recorded more than 100 rockets or shells exploding in Tskhinvali.

Russia sent in troops and armour, saying they were there to protect its peacekeepers and the civilian population.

Royal Dutch Shell oil company and the Iraqi Oil Ministry have struck a secret, as-of-yet non-binding agreement that gives a monopoly over southern Iraq’s natural gas to the energy giant. It marks the first time in over 35 years a Western oil company has played a major role in the country’s most lucrative industry.

Signed Sept. 22 and obtained by United Press International, the “Heads of Agreement” document — basically a legal framework for a contract — delegates Shell sole access to the reserves for the next 25 years, with an option to extend that term.

Shell says the arrangement gives it exclusive rights to all natural gas runoff produced by oil exploration operations in the southern portion of the country. However, like so many other major industrial contracts coming out of Iraq, the process used to reach an agreement is being questioned.

“There hasn’t been much transparency in this agreement,” said Ali Hussain Balou, chairman of Iraq’s Oil and Gas Committee, in a report by Reuters. “They did not give a chance to another company. We want to know why.”

“It is only a partnership,” Iraqi Oil Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad told UPI. “There will not be a monopoly of the gas.”

The agreement does not allow Iraq the rights to it’s own natural gas reserves - Iraq’s economic future. Under its terms, state-run companies would capture “non-associated gas” discovered during oil exploration, which would then be sold exclusively to Shell for export.

In Sept., several no-bid Iraqi oil contracts were supposedly canceled after coming under fire from US Senators. Though the deals were allegedly scuttled, the companies were invited to bid for the contracts. Almost immediately, Shell was announced to be on the cusp of becoming the first company to have major dealings in Iraq since the 1960’s.

The “Heads of Agreement” document is just the next step in what AlterNet’s Nick Turse says is a secretly negotiated arrangement between the Pentagon and the UK’s most powerful oil company.

“The Pentagon’s Shell deal came during one DoD’s periodic petroleum benders - massive multi-day spending sprees where hundreds of millions or billions of taxpayer dollars are paid out to oil companies,” writes Turse. “This one, on September 17th and 18th, netted Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and seven other oil companies a grand total of over $1.5 billion.”

“These complex issues go ignored because they are viewed as so routine as not to be worth mentioning, but in any other context the confluence of guns, oil and billions of dollars would certainly raise eyebrows,” he concludes.

Congratulations to president-elect Barack Obama. Change is coming because the people demanded it. With George W Bush the will of the people fell on deaf ears as the self-proclaimed dictator did what he wanted, when he wanted and no matter how much it cost in money or lives. Obama has a long way to go before any change can begin to take place. He was “elected” by the people of the United States of America on November 4, 2008. George W Bush had his brother declare him the president in 2000 - self-imposed non-elected president. George W Bush agenda, well before he stole the presidency was to start WWIII. He and his co-conspirators planned for it with the publication of “Rebuilding America Defenses”. They knew the only why to justify building up the military is if the US were attacked and the US declared war. Well, they even planned that attack that started their wars of terror - the attacks of September 11, 2001. It is for these reasons that George W Bush, George HW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and their co-conspirators can’t afford to have Barack Obama sworn in as president of the United States of America in Jan 2009. Once Obama is president their secrets will be exposed. Their guilt will be shown to the new incoming president and if he proceeds as promised and makes major changes then those who are guilty of crimes against the US and the US people will answer to their crimes.

Until Obama is officially sworn in it is only prudent that steps be taken to control the outgoing administration. They could refuse to hand over the White House and order the assassination of Obama or start WWIII with an illegal and unprovoked attack against Iran. The CIA will most likely be in charge of assassinating Obama just as they did for John F Kennedy. Few know that George HW Bush was working for the CIA and helped plan and carry out the assassination of JFK. Bush had motive and opportunity. Motive was the Cuba Invasion (Bay of Pigs) failure in which George HW Bush was to be the sole oil baron of Cuba as Zapata Oil - if the US had been authorized by Kennedy to attack it. But Kennedy did not authorize air support and the invasion was automatically doomed. Zapata Oil was co-founded by George HW Bush in 1953. The initial $1 million investment for Zapata was provided by the Liedtke brothers and their circle of investors, by Bush’s father and uncle—Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker Bush, and his family circle of friends. Hugh Liedtke was named president, Bush was vice president. In 1954, Zapata Off-Shore Company was formed as a subsidiary of Zapata Oil, with Bush as president of the new company. In 1962, Bush was joined in Zapata Off-Shore by a fellow Yale Skull and Bones member, Robert Gow. By 1963, Zapata Off-Shore had four operational oil-drilling — Scorpion (1956), Vinegaroon (1957), Sidewinder, and (in the Persian Gulf) Nola III. In 1963, Zapata Petroleum merged with South Penn Oil and other companies to become Pennzoil.

Obama must be vigilant with the CIA as the Bush family and the CIA were named in the assassination of JFK. The CIA already murdered one president of the United States of America. The CIA was involved in the 9/11 attacks, the UK bombings, the assassinations of Rafiq Hariri and Benazir Bhutto, as well as the the IED attacks against the US own troops in Iraq - all ordered by none other than George W Bush. The CIA are also guilty of kidnapping, torturing and killing unknown numbers of foreign and domestic civilians - again under orders of George W Bush and Dick Cheney. During the campaign there were internationally documented reports of several attempts on Obama’s life - all by the Bush family using the CIA. Obama would do well to keep an eye on the Clintons too as they to are just as corrupt and power hungry as the Bush family - Mena drug smuggling and trafficking ring while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas in 1978, the ongoing Peter Paul FEC indictment and investigation (The Largest Election Law Fraud in History), Filegate, Hillary’s file shredding and obstruction of justice during several investigations of real estate fraud, White House campaign contributions from China, Bill selling US state secrets to China, Clintons White House room renting scam, threats against victims of Bill’s sexual assaults, and firing of witnesses subpoenaed for indictments against the Clintons. Change from wars, corruption and aggression is what the people want and that is what they expect from Obama. Including any corrupt government official for positions in high offices of the US government is not change it will be more of the same. Continuing the wars is not change it is a continuance of the Bush doctrine of terror. Change means out with the old, in with the new. The Bush family and the Clintons are the old - been there, done that, didn’t work out.

CIA Bush Connection

Two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) memoranda have been offered to show connections between the CIA and George H. W. Bush during his time at Zapata. The first memo names Zapata Off-Shore and was written by FBI Special Agent Graham Kitchel on 22 November 1963, regarding the John F. Kennedy assassination at 12:30 p.m. CST that day. It begins: “At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer. .. BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential. .. was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel.”

A second FBI memorandum, written by J. Edgar Hoover, identifies “George Bush” with the CIA. It is dated 29 November 1963 and refers to a briefing given Bush on 23 November. The FBI Director describes a briefing about JFK’s murder “orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency. .. [by] this Bureau” on “November 23, 1963.

The following video demonstrates actual vote-flips on the ES&S iVotronic, by showing how the failing machines, when not calibrated properly, can flip a vote from one candidate to any other. It’s apparently just a coincidence that, so far, all of the confirmed reports of vote-flips this year have been away from Democratic candidates.

It should also be noted that it doesn’t matter what is shown on the screen when a voter votes on one of these devices which will be used by approximately one-third of American voters this year. The fact is that it’s strictly impossible to confirm that any vote ever cast during an election on any Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting machine was ever recorded accurately for any candidate or initiative on the ballot, as per the voter’s intent.

This video, demonstrating one way that votes flip from one candidate to another on DREs

A forged flyer going to voters in a closely fought Virginia congressional district seems aimed at suppressing Democratic turnout on Election Day.

Purporting to come from Virginia’s Board of Elections, the flyer says “All Democratic party supporters and independent voters supporting Democratic candidates shall vote on November 5th.” That’s one day after Election Day.

Whoever is circulating the flyer seems concerned with electing Republicans. The phony information tells “Republican party supporters and independent voters supporting Republican candidates” to vote on Nov. 4, the real day of the election.

Link to report Phony flier says Virginians vote on different days

The government has cleared the way to ship out $125 billion bonuses this week to the country’s largest banks, beginning the biggest government swindle in history.

“The money will go out the door for those institutions early this week,” predicts Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason, one of the chief architects of the rescue plan.

Not only is the money ready to be sent to nine major financial institutions, including Bank of America, Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase, but the government is reaching preliminary agreements with a group of more than a dozen major regional banks, who will share a part of an additional $125 billion the government hopes to pump into the banking system.

This is clearly the largest swindle in US history as the banks that are receiving the $125 billion bonuses are not in financial trouble. According to the 2008 Fortune 500 report the banks that are receiving government money have made large profits.

8 Citigroup Earnings $159.229 billion Profit $3.617 billion
9 Bank of America Corp. Earnings $119.190 billion Profit $14.982 billion
12 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Earnings $116.353 billion Profit $15.365 billion
20 Goldman Sachs Group Earnings $87.968 billion Profit $11.599 billion
21 Morgan Stanley Earnings $87.879 billion Profit $3.209 billion

To put their financial status in perspective look at the loss reported by GM and Ford. They both have reported $billion losses yet have not filed for bankruptcy protection. If GM can sustain a $38 billion loss and stay afloat why can’t the banks with $billion profits make it on their own without government money? The answer is securities fraud on a massive scale- to defraud the US people of $700 billion.

4 General Motors Earnings $182.347 billion losses $38.732 billion
7 Ford Motor Earnings $172.468 billion losses $2.723 billion

The banks that were in trouble will not receive US government help

30 Merrill Lynch Earnings $64.217 billion losses $7.777 billion
53 Fannie Mae Earnings $43.355 billion losses $2.050 billion
54 Freddie Mac Earnings $43.104 billion losses $3.094 billion


Georgia launched an unprovoked attack against the civilian population of South Ossetia. US armed Georgia killed Russian peace keepers and thousands of South Ossetia civilians before Russia moved troops in to protect its citizens and peace keepers.

If you thought George W Bush was a war monger wait and see who is elected (steals) the US presidential election. If Americans put McCain and Palin in office you should prepare for WWIII. McCain has a temper. When things don’t go his way he becomes very irrational and vindictive. He clearly is a Bush idealist. Americans know that George W Bush is a criminal. The US people know he waged illegal wars based on false accusations. The US people wanted George W Bush to end the wars years ago and yet we see McCain uttering the same Bush rhetoric against innocent Middle East states. We have McCain embracing Bush’s wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq - neither of which had any hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. We have a former POW who endorses torturing POWs and civilians taken and held without evidence of a crime and without charge. We have a presidential candidate who has and continues to support Bush’s unprovoked wars of aggression We have a presidential and vice-presidential candidate advocating a war with nuclear Russia. Neither are elected yet they are talking of attacking Russia. That is not diplomacy. That is not leadership. That is insanity. That is suicidal. That is Nazism.

In an ABC report John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin said that Georgia should join NATO and war might be necessary if Russia tried to defend the people of South Ossetia again. She went on to say “we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable.” Excuse me for noticing but isn’t that exactly what George W Bush did? The US invaded smaller defenseless countries. The US attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq were unprovoked. The US attacks and occupations are unacceptable and unlawful. For Palin to plan to attack Russia for something they have not done is reckless, stupid and insane. Need we remind Palin that Russia has 5200 nuclear warheads. Russia has nuclear armed submarines deployed within striking distance of the US. Russia has nuclear ballistic missiles that can reach any of the 262 major US cities. Russia has long range supersonic bombers that can reach the US. Hitler believed he could attack and defeat Russia. He too was reckless. He too was insane. What makes McCain and Palin think that the US could attack Russia and not expect Russia to defend itself and fight back? If Bush attacks Iran, both China and Russia have warned the US of the consequences. If the US under a McCain and Palin administration, directly attacks Russia what do you think would be the consequences?

As the 2008 presidential election heads into its final week, the current president threw a political wild card on table late Friday, when he asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the status of 200,000 Ohio voters. Bush’s request is clearly electoral fraud - illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud tend to involve affecting vote counts to bring about a desired election outcome, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both.

George W. Bush’s request, if honored, could be politically explosive. It would remind voters of the Department of Justice’s partisan abuses of power in the scandal surrounding the firing of seven U.S. attorneys in 2006 who did not deliver ‘voter fraud’ convictions.

It could be a big distraction, drawing attention away from issues that call for legitimate DOJ intervention, such as shortages of voting machines in minority precincts in Virginia and Pennsylvania, compared to nearby white precincts. That disparity would violate existing civil rights law.

Or it could interject a complicating dynamic into the already heavily litigated Ohio general election, by adding the Department’s weight to GOP legal claims that pre-emptively question the legitimacy of a close vote count in a key battleground state.

Either way, the Department must choose if it will remain silent or get involved in an action that would go well beyond its historic role of quietly monitoring elections and avoiding messages to voters.

“This is taking the politicization of this to a new level, and the last thing we need is for the elections officials and voters of Ohio to be put in a chaotic situation in the last days before the election,” Jon Greenbaum of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the Washington Post, reacting to the White House request.

The White House, according to the same Post report, described its actions as a routine referral to a federal agency as requested by a member of Congress, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Boehner had written to Mukasey early last week but received no response.

The Obama campaign reaction was to send the fourth letter this month to Mukasey urging he ensure the Department does not interfere “to satisfy desperate partisan political demands.”

“For the Department now, in response to the intense politics of the moment, to abruptly intercede in the current work of state and local officials would inflict incalculable damage — further and irreparable damage — to your office and to the reputation of senior federal law enforcement,” said Robert Bauer, Obama campaign counsel.

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This ” Constitution-Free Zone” includes most of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas.

U.S. “Constitution Free Zone” Map

* Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
* The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
* But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
* As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
* Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
* However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
* The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.


We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night!

Bush said that if the Senate did not pass the unpopular $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill, he will consider declaring martial law.

“I have decided that I may have to be the decider in this decision,” Bush decided to tell reporters at the White House. “Democracy has so far failed to pass this important legislation, so a decision deciding in favor of it may be decided by me.”

Bush threatened he would invoke Executive Order 66, which will prevent Congress from making any more decisions by leaving the deciding up to him. It will activate martial law and eliminate all public elections. Shares of Halliburton Corp. went up on the news.

“The American populace needs strong leadership to get this bailout law in place, because profits are at stake here,” Bush declared. “And without profits, the country cannot move forward and stand on its own. The alternative to this only choice will not be successful. We must never mind the furthermore, to plead this is common sense.”

Most Americans are opposed to bailing out Wall Street, despite the Bush’s dire warnings about the consequences of doing nothing. Many disgusted Americans are planning to drop out of the economic system altogether if the bailout bill passes.

“Why should I work hard only to have my money confiscated and given to rich people on Wall Street?” asked Larry Johnson, a factory worker in Detroit, Michigan. “Screw it. If this bailout passes, I’m going to go live with the Amish. I’ll grow my own food, make my own clothes and give up electricity and hot water. No more credit cards. No more taxes to pay.”

Bush, who is aware that Americans are leaning toward a less modern and less slave-like existence, warned them against leaving America’s corporate-controlled economic system.

“Collectivating on farms and living peaceably without debt might seem like the answer, but it isn’t,” he said. “That’s socialism, and it will fail. That’s why I urge my fellow Americans to support the Wall Street bailout package with their tax money, so we can preserve our free markets and capitalism.”

Ninety-eight percent of all companies in the United States have less than 100 employees. Twenty-seven million firms fall into the category of small business, and small businesses employ 56 percent of our nation’s population. These companies are responsible for over 90 percent of the new jobs, over 90 percent of U.S. exports and over 90 percent of innovation in American business. Congress realized America’s small businesses were the heart and soul of our nation’s economy when they passed the Small Business Act in 1953.

Our nation is in the midst of one of the most dramatic economic downturns in modern history. More than ever, America’s 27 million small businesses need the economic benefits the Small Business Act was designed to provide.

None of this seems to matter to President George W. Bush. Although President Bush regularly panders to small businesses in his speeches, his policies paint a different picture. At the same time that President Bush backed the $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout, he continued to dismantle existing federal programs designed to assist American small businesses.

During his two terms, President Bush has systematically dismantled each and every program established under the Small Business Act to assist American small businesses, especially those firms owned by women, minorities and veterans.

President Bush’s anti-small business policies began during his first week as president. The first thing he did to dismantle America’s small business programs was to remove the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) from the President’s Cabinet. Then he began to cut the SBA’s budget and staffing more than any other federal agency.

Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations have been released, which have all found rampant and government-wide fraud, abuse, loopholes and a blatant lack of proper oversight in federal small business contracting programs. Several of the investigations found that the Bush Administration has diverted billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to many of the largest corporations in the world.

Current federal law requires that a minimum of 23 percent of the total value of all federal contracts and subcontracts be awarded to small businesses. However, every year the federal government awards billions of dollars in small business contracts to some of the largest corporations in the U.S. and Europe.

Report 5-15 from the SBA Office of Inspector General states, “One of the most important challenges facing the SBA and the entire Federal Government today is that large businesses are receiving small business procurement awards and agencies are receiving credit for these awards.”

Several Bush officials have privately acknowledged that at least 50 percent of all federal small business contracts or about $70 billion a year actually go to corporate giants. Based on information obtained in a series of successful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits filed against the Bush Administration, the American Small Business League (ASBL) estimates legitimate small businesses are being cheated out of over $100 billion each year.

Last year, the Bush Administration adopted a policy that will allow Fortune 500 firms to continue to receive government small business contracts until 2012. http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=592

Bush officials recently began to dismantle one of the government’s only programs to assist minority-owned firms, the Small Disadvantaged Business contracting program.

Senator McCain has never objected to any of the Bush Administration’s anti-small business policies. During more than two years of campaigning, not once has Senator McCain mentioned his intention to restore America’s small business programs. If Senator John McCain is elected president, he will likely finish what Bush started and completely dismantle all federal programs designed to assist American small businesses.

Links: New SBA Policy Lets Miscoded Small Business Contracts Continue Until 2012/

Latest GSA Small Business Contracting Numbers Include Billions to Fortune 500 Corporations

denver_airport.jpg
Denver International Airport, located in Denver, Colorado some miles northeast of the city center, is physically the largest airport in the United States of America and the largest public works project in American history, covering an area of 53 square miles. Its construction cost nearly five billion dollars, financed by bond issues.

The United States and Russia sent their top military officers to the Helsinki capital Tuesday for an unannounced meeting. The meeting was arranged with great secrecy and was the first time that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had met his counterpart, General Nikolai Makarov, since the Russian was appointed chief of the General Staff this summer.

It has been reported that the American Generals have stated their ‘firm belief’ that the United States and Europe are under an ‘imminent threat’ for large scale attacks by nuclear weapons prior to the US elections, due to be held on November 4th, that will completely destroy both America and the European Union in a bid to establish upon both these Nations a new ‘Forth Reich’ modeled upon the former German Nazi Empire.

Russian Military Analysts state in these reports that the fascist forces currently in power in both the United States and European Union already have in place all of the necessary laws and private paramilitary forces needed to accomplish such an astounding coup of virtually the entire Western World.

This new ‘Forth Reich’, these reports continue, is planned to ruled from the ‘new’ Western capital cities of Denver, Colorado and Vienna, Austria as Washington D.C. and nearly all of Europe’s main capitol cities will be destroyed in this planned attack.

Russian Military and Political Forces have been on ‘high alert’ over the planned destruction of the United States by those factions within it who see that their days are numbered but will not allow their most guarded secrets to ever be revealed to their citizens, even to the extreme of aligning themselves with dissident European factions currently engaged in the destruction of the entire Global financial system.

Top international military officials meet in Adirondacks.

This meeting between the United States and Russia’s top Military Officials followed an equally unprecedented meeting held also this past weekend in the Adirondack Mountain Region of New York State between these US Generals and all of the top Military Officers and Staff of Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands and South Korea.

Continuity of Operation Planning/ Continuity of Government

For years there has been a buzz about the billions of dollars cost overrun and strange goings on at the Denver International Airport (l5 billion dollars over budget). Rumors have it (by the original builders and contractors, airport personnel) that massive tunnels have been built underneath the airport that actually crisscross into New Mexico and the Rocky Mtns.

It has been suggested that it is part of the existing plan to build structures that will house l00,000 people in case of apocalypse. The Denver Airport is part of this plan.

The main points of such a plan (Continuity of Operation Planning/ Continuity of Government) in the United States are to suspend certain parts of the United States Constitution and to allow the alternative use of federal land and buildings (including use as internment camps) by FEMA for the housing/detention of US citizens as required, as well as any rescue/recovery operations. It also allows for power in the US to be centralized to the White House and “appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law.

JP-Morgan1.jpg
All windows on one side of JP Morgan Chase building in Houston (owned by Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese billionaire and former Lebanese prime minister who was assassinated 14 February 2005 in a bomb explosion in Beruit Lebanon) were blown out during Hurricane Ike. Symbolic of things to come and perhaps the reason why JP Morgan was placed in charge of $540 billion - Is weather the new weapon for hostile takeovers

The Federal Reserve will take an extra $540 billion in tax payers funds to give to their own. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned company, not a branch of the US Government

JPMorgan Chase & Co. one of the partners that own the Federal Reserve will run five special units that will buy up to $600 billion of certificates of deposit, bank notes and commercial paper with a remaining maturity of 90 days or less. The Fed will provide up to $540 billion, with the remaining $60 billion coming from counterfeit paper issued by the five units to the money-market funds selling their assets, central bank officials told reporters on a conference call. The money will simply be printed for pennies on the dollar and the privately owned Federal Reserve will bill the American people for the full value. What the Federal Reserve is and has been doing is counterfeiting legal tender and laundering it through the US government.

The Private (alias Federal) Reserve owners are;

1. Rothschild Bank of London
2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg
3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin
4. Lehman Brothers of New York - allowed to go bankrupt in order to get $700 billion bailout. Was used as deception. Was necessary for Bush administration’s 9/11 economic attack against the US where private banks are the enemy.
5. Lazard Brothers of Paris
6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
8. Goldman, Sachs of New York - Sole beneficiary of the $700 billion Bailout. Conflict of Interest is being ignored by the FBI and SEC. Bush appointed Secretary Treasurer Henry Paulson has $700 million in shares in Goldman Sachs and will no doubt be reinstated as CEO in a little over 2 months.
9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York - The bank was known as Chase Manhattan Bank until it merged with JPMorgan in 2000. The Federal Reserve rewarding itself with US tax dollars.

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations nor as “mixed ownership” corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. .

No one seems to notice and realize that the Bush administration is robbing the American people. They are stealing as much as they can before Bush, Cheney, Rice, Paulson, Gates and their co-conspirators leave office. In 2 months the American people will be handed over the massive debt that the Bush administration racketeered.

rack·et·eer - A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.

History of Counterfeiting
The counterfeiting of money is one of the oldest crimes in history. At some periods in early history, it was considered treasonous and was punishable by death.

During the American Revolution, the British counterfeited U.S. currency in such large amounts that the Continental currency soon became worthless. “Not worth a Continental” became a popular expression that is still heard today.

During the Civil War, one-third to one-half of the currency in circulation was counterfeit. At that time, approximately 1,600 state banks designed and printed their own bills. Each bill carried a different design, making it difficult to detect counterfeit bills from the 7,000 varieties of real bills.

A national currency was adopted in 1862 to resolve the counterfeiting problem. However, the national currency was soon counterfeited and circulated so extensively that it became necessary to take enforcement measures. Therefore, on July 5, 1865, the United States Secret Service was established to suppress the wide-spread counterfeiting of this nation’s currency.

The Secret Service had exclusive jurisdiction for investigations involving the counterfeiting of United States obligations and securities. This authority to investigate counterfeiting is derived from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056. Some of the counterfeited United States obligations and securities commonly dealt with by the Secret Service include U.S. currency and coins; U.S. Treasury checks; Department of Agriculture food coupons and U.S. postage stamps

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 203 > § 3056

§ 3056. Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service

(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons:
(1) The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of President), the President-elect, and the Vice President-elect.
(2) The immediate families of those individuals listed in paragraph (1).
(3) Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes,

(g) The United States Secret Service shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security and shall not be merged with any other Department function. No personnel and operational elements of the United States Secret Service shall report to an individual other than the Director of the United States Secret Service, who shall report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security without being required to report through any other official of the Department.

Bush wanted the Secret Service controlled and today they answer to the Department of Homeland Security or DHS (modern day Gestapo). “The United States Secret Service shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security and shall not be merged with any other Department function.” No longer is their role to counter counterfeiting - they now are controlled exclusively by the DHS. The DHS was formed with the passing of the un-Patriot Act (similar to the Nazi Enabling Act and the formation of the Gestapo - the official secret police of Nazi Germany.)

Gestapo (gə-stä’pō) - The German internal security police as organized under the Nazi regime, known for its terrorist methods directed against those suspected of treason or questionable loyalty. It ruthlessly suppressed opposition to the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe and sent Jews and others to concentration camps.

Department of Homeland Security - George W. Bush established the Department of Homeland Security. The aims of the department were to undertake anti-American measures, directed against those accused of questionable loyalty - arrested without evidence and held without charge. DHS suppresses opposition to the Bush Regime in the US and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan where the resistance to the unlawful wars of aggression and occupation of their country are sent to concentration camps in Cuba and tortured to death for daring to defend their country and countrymen from the brutal US attacks.


Paulson owns some 4.58 million shares in Goldman Sachs (including restricted stock) worth about $700 million at today’s price .

The real intent of the Bush-Paulson bailout is unfolding. Economists already stated that the $700 billion bailout would not help the financial crisis unless the government addressed the real issues that got the US into the mess in the first place. It would seem that it’s business as usual as the Bush administration is starting to hand out free bonuses to banks connected to or who endorsed his presidency. Already $70 billion has been “given” to firms such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup as bonuses to executives. There is a clear conflict of interest as treasure Secretary Paulson was once CEO (and probably still is) of Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs was the first to receive $billions in bonuses. The first priority was to fix the financial crisis yet here they are handing out $billions in US tax dollars to firms who haven’t even indicated that they would have to seek bankruptcy protection because of bad debts.

“When Congress placed restrictions on excessive executive pay, it had no intention of permitting business as usual with respect to bonus structures,” Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said. “It would add insult to injury to ask taxpayers not only to bailout a firm, but to pay for bonuses as well. The Guardian’s report necessitates an immediate inquiry.”

The FBI is investigating four Wall Street institutions at the heart of the financial crisis over their role in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Reports said preliminary investigations into potential corporate fraud at the US mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the insurer American International Group and the investment bank Lehman Brothers had been opened.

They are among 26 companies being scrutinised by the FBI. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG were bailed out by the government , while Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Senior executives at the companies are also believed to be in the FBI’s sights, while the securities and exchange commission is also reportedly assessing possible civil fraud claims against the four firms.

The FBI have demanded information from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and - prior to its collapse - Bear Stearns. Because Henry Paulson is “acting” Treasure Secretary and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs may have been granted immunity from the FBI investigations into their role in the subprime mortgage scheme.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BROUGHT ABOUT THE US ECONOMIC CRISIS

The first misconception that most people have is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a branch of the US government. IT IS NOT. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. Most people believe it is as American as the Constitution. THE FACT IS THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT’S EXISTENCE. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to create money and regulate the value thereof, NOT A BUNCH OF INTERNATIONAL BANKERS!

The Federal Reserve Bank creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of New York 5. Lazard Brothers of Paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8. Goldman, Sachs of New York 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson’s campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation. When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied, referring to the FED, “I have unwittingly ruined my country”. Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected.

Merrill Lynch & Co.’s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain’s campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.

Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama’s top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center.

Merrill Lynch’s chief executive, John Thain, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain. Merrill’s workforce likewise is McCain’s top donor, giving nearly $300,000.

Separately, employees from the commercial bank and insurance sectors gave McCain’s campaign $3.6 million and Obama’s campaign $3.4 million.

Henry Paulson’s Goldman Sachs is the larger of the nation’s two remaining major independent investment banks. The other is Morgan Stanley, where employees have contributed $300,000 to Obama and $217,000 to McCain.

Not a bad investment for Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. How can you go wrong by contributing a $million or more to campaign contributions and receive in return $billions. The US Congress didn’t pass the bailout bill to help you they did it because they were paid to pass it by their financial backers like Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. Isn’t that the same thing as the banks US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 201 Bribery of public officials and witnessesBribery of public officials and witnesses?


Vincent Bugliosi is an American attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and other defendants accused of the Tate-LaBianca murders. His most recent books are “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy” (2007), and “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” (2008).

Vincent Bugliosi, “With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I’ve been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for “the little guy”), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain’s run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I’m giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.”

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 51 > § 1111

§ 1111. Murder

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).


lib·er·ate - to release (a country) from enemy occupation
oc·cu·pa·tion - Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces
re·sis·tance - An underground organization engaged in a struggle for national liberation in a country under military or totalitarian occupation.

What is a terrorist?
US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA defines “terrorist activity” to mean: “any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.”

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 51 > § 1116

§ 1116. Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons

(a) Whoever kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title.
(b) For the purposes of this section:
(1) “Family” includes (a) a spouse, parent, brother or sister, child, or person to whom the foreign official or internationally protected person stands in loco parentis, or (b) any other person living in his household and related to the foreign official or internationally protected person by blood or marriage.
(2) “Foreign government” means the government of a foreign country, irrespective of recognition by the United States.
(3) “Foreign official” means—
(A) a Chief of State or the political equivalent, President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Ambassador, Foreign Minister, or other officer of Cabinet rank or above of a foreign government or the chief executive officer of an international organization, or any person who has previously served in such capacity, and any member of his family, while in the United States; and
(B) any person of a foreign nationality who is duly notified to the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign government or international organization, and who is in the United States on official business, and any member of his family whose presence in the United States is in connection with the presence of such officer or employee.

No that you know what terrorism is, as defined by the United States own laws, how can you not see who the real terrorists are? According to US law the actions taken by this Bush Administration against foreign states, foreign officials and internationally protected person are all acts of terrorism. They have committed violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State. Their violent acts against Iraq and Afghanistan are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; and to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Every one held by the US in secret jails around the World, in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are held illegally as US law clearly defines terrorism as “seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, individuals in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.” International terrorism is defined by the US as including the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device. US veterans has witnessed the US using chemical (white phosphorus) and nuclear weapons (depleted uranium shells are still classified as nuclear) on the civilian population in Al Fallujah Iraq. The US has made public threats against Iran which they clearly have made and continue to make plans for a nuclear attack against Iran if they do not comply with US political demands. The US nuclear use threat is clearly to affect the conduct of the Iran government by mass destruction, to intimidate or coerce Iran’s civilian population and to influence the policy of Iran’s government by intimidation or coercion.

US law clearly exposes the mass deception that is the US War on Terror. According to US law in regards to terrorism and what constitutes acts of terrorisms the Bush administration is guilty of terrorism by committing acts of terrorism against foreign states, foreign officials and internationally protected persons. The Bush administration, is defined by US law as terrorists engaging in acts of war of terrorism.

Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. “To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors,” he asked.

According to his central analysis, “the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds'’.

Prof Kotlikoff, who teaches at Boston University, says: “The proper way to consider a country’s solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country’s policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.

If investors lose confidence in the US’s future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds.

The administration of George W. Bush authorized the CIA to waterboard (torture) alleged Al-Qaeda suspects according to two secret memos issued in 2003 and 2004, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

For centuries, civilized countries have considered waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to be torture. The United States rightly condemned as war criminals Japanese soldiers who employed the technique against U.S. personnel during World War II. It prosecuted U.S. military officers who waterboarded prisoners at the turn of the 20th century. The practice, which causes its victims to feel that they are about to die, is unquestionably cruel. Every administration prior to this one has judged it to be prohibited by U.S. law and treaty obligations. It is incontestably a blot on the reputation of this country and a breach of the very values we claim to want to export to the rest of the world.

The administration says it has not used the technique for five years and claims to have used it only on alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and POWs Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The acknowledgment is an admission of guilt of war crimes. Any federal court that considered waterboarding would be likely to rule waterboarding as torture. The legality of abusive treatment depends on “the circumstances” only if the treatment falls short of torture, which is illegal in all instances. Waterboarding is, and always has been, torture.

Written by PAUL W KINCAID, Toronto, Ontario

Stephen Harper hasn’t got the message yet - Canadians don’t trust him with a majority government. NDP leader Jack Layton stated that a second Conservative minority government means “no party has a mandate to implement an agenda without agreement from the other parties.” Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe addressed supporters in Montreal on just how important it was for Canada not to give Harper a majority saying “Without the Bloc Québécois tonight, Mr. Harper would have formed a majority government.” Newfoundland said it best with “Anything But Conservative” appeal that worked by shutting out the Tories in the province. Canadians ‘voted to move our country forward,’ but with caution - still needs agreement from the other parties to implement any agenda. Looks like the NAU will just have to wait 4 more years or until Stephen Harper decides he’s not fit to be “Prime Minister” and kicks himself out of office - again. This past election clearly shows that Harper is weak on leadership. Weak because he has put himself above the needs of the country and the people. Harper had a minority government which he himself was always trying to defeat from day one. Finally he resorted to violating the Canada Elections Act by calling a year early election. The opposition didn’t decide to call an election. The people didn’t want another election and didn’t ask for an election. Harper’s minority government bypassed parliamentary rules and acted as if he had a majority government and declared himself incompetent (dysfunctional) to lead the nation. 62.37% of the people of Canada voted against Stephen Harper. That means “the majority” of Canadians have declared that Stephen Harper is incompetent to lead Canada with a majority. The majority of Canadians agreed with Harper, that he is dysfunctional. Had the opposition had a different leader the outcome would have been a change. Until the Liberals get a new leader then Canada has decided to keep Harper in office - on probation (remain at large in the community subject to conditions prescribed by a minority rule of law).

A reminder to Stephen Harper as he resumes his duties as Prime Minister of Canada with a minority under a parliamentary government.

Parliamentary governments are defined by an absence of clear separation between two key branches of government: the legislative branch, which is responsible for enacting laws, and the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing laws. In parliamentary governments, the executive branch is “fused with” and “dependent upon” the legislative branch.

In Canada’s parliamentary system, this interrelationship between the legislative and executive branches is expressed in several ways. First, key members of the executive, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are usually drawn directly from the legislative branch. The Prime Minister, for example, is an elected member of the House of Commons. As such, s/he performs the dual functions of leading the government, as well as representing his/her riding as a regular member of the House of Commons.

Second, and more importantly, the executive branch is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot decide the direction of government or administer enacted laws if it does not enjoy the continual support of the majority of members in the House of Commons.

logo2007.jpg

How to make hydrogen fuel from cold fission of salt water. FuelReducer’s Water for Fuel Project is almost a reality. For the past few weeks FuelReducer has been experimenting with salt water as a source of hydrogen fuel. FuelReducer has shown through YouTube videos how simple it is to split water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen gas. As sea water cannot be used as a source of drinking water why not use it as the most abundant source for hydrogen fuel. There are no environmental side effects and by using sea water as a source of hydrogen fuel then all the oil producing nations will have more fuel to sell to the World for decades longer. We already know that oil is not limitless. We all know a number of nations depend on selling their oil to their neighbors and allies for revenue so using other sources of fuel will allow those oil producing countries to continue to profit from oil sales much longer than now predicted. As global warming is apparently to blame for the rising of the sea levels then using sea water as a source of hydrogen fuel also addresses and provides a solution to slow and or stop the rise in sea levels that threaten to flood and damage our coastal properties.

You too can be a part of the future where salt water is used as a viable source of hydrogen fuel. You can invest in FuelReducer so that their technology can be put on the market much sooner than later. FuelReducer is not a threat to oil producing nations. FuelReducer will help those nations self-sustain themselves for decades or centuries longer than is now possible with today’s very high demand for their black gold.

Has anyone asked where is Vice-president Dick Cheney? It is very unlike Cheney not to appear and put his now devalued 2 cents in. You would think that with the US economic crisis everyone in the White House would go on record, publicly, to offer encouragement and advise as to how to fix it. After all Cheney is still CEO of Haliburton. Where is Cheney? Has he been the first to be arrested for the crimes committed by the Bush Administration?

Frustrated that elected officials have refused to introduce articles of impeachment in defiance of their constituents’ demands, the people of Brattelboro, Vermont voted to direct town officials to draw up indictment papers against George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating their oath of office.

The Brattleboro vote took place during the Tuesday’s Vermont primary election. Bush supporters launched a major campaign to discredit the referendum resolution and the organizers. Yet the resolution passed by a vote of 2012 in favor to 1795 against.

“Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?” The people of Brattleboro answered, “yes!”

The indictment means that Bush and Cheney can be arrested for criminal acts should they ever enter Brattleboro. The indictment would go into effect after Bush and Cheney leave office.


The Bush administration threatened to declare martial law if Congress did not pass Bush and Paulson’s bailout scheme that only benefits banks who support his presidency. Rep. Brad Sherman spoke in the House that Congress was threatened with the declaration of Martial Law if they did not vote to pass the bill. No law enforcement agencies are even investigating such unlawful intimidation by the Bush administration. It would appear that martial law has already been secretly declared by George W Bush. How else would you explain the inaction by the FBI or Justice Department. This bill is not legal because coercion was used to obtain federal funding. Congress was threatened. The people were threatened with martial law with Bush as dictator. The Bush administration has grossly abused their power. The US Constitution has been violated. As American citizens it is your duty to defend your country and your way of life by resisting the criminals who have taken the White House by criminals means. It is you duty to defend the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is time to take back what is rightfully yours. Police offices and law enforcement agents who are still loyal and duty bound to uphold the law, it is now time for you to do your jobs and arrest these anti-democracy, anti-Constitution and anti-American criminals. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Isn’t it time to stand up and defend your country and fellow countrymen from the enemy within.

There are 2 solutions to end the US economic crisis. They can be implemented with no added costs to the US people. The US economic crisis was brought on by debt.

Solution 1 - Cancel the NAFTA treaty. To cancel NAFA means jobs stay in the US, the economy will boom as US citizens will be employed and have income to pay their debts and purchase new items for their homes. To cancel NAFTA means a stronger US dollar.

Solution 2 - End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars are bleeding the US dry. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any citizens involved in the hijackings of US airlines. Neither country used or threatened to use military forces to attack the US. There was no threat from Iraq or Afghanistan. $Trillions are wasted on an immoral, illegal, unjustified and unending wars against the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan. Every 6 months George W Bush goes to Congress asking for $Billions for these wars.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

The Washington-based Congressional Research Service estimate $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month is being spent just on the Iraq war. These figures do not included funding for the Pentagon or private security forces that now outnumber the US troops occupying Iraq.
The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops. More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense Department figures - all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars.

Iraq War Results & Statistics at October 1, 2008
4,178 US Soldiers Killed, 30,680 Seriously Wounded

War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers’ funds. In June 2008, Bush signed a bill approving about 200 billion more for 2008, which brings the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.

U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008

U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

oathofoffice.jpg

The blame for all this crisis falls to George W Bush. The World should have known that if Bush failed at every business endeavour he undertook then he most likely would fail as president of the United States of America. Every decision he has ever made has resulted in failure. It amazes me that after suffering one failure after another the US people haven’t fired this
incompetent SOB.

The US Declaration of Independence states

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Presidential Oaths of Office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The United Nation Charter (a treaty signed by the US)

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article
1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

   1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of
all its Members.

   2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

   3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

   4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441
§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged in the absence of “a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

    To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

“Guantánamo was designed as a law-free zone, a place where the government could do whatever it wanted without having to worry about whether it was legal,” said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney with the Lowenstein Clinic at Yale. “It didn’t take long for that sort of lawlessness to be brought home to our own country. Who knows how much further America would have gone if the Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in to stop incommunicado detentions in 2004?”

War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”, including but not limited to “murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps”, “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war”, the killing of hostages, “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity”

According to an explosive 437-page report released by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), FBI agents assigned to the U.S. prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, compiled what they dubbed a “war crimes” file documenting prisoner abuse and torture by U.S. military and intelligence personnel.

The OIG report on the role of the FBI in observing or participating in prisoner abuse was compiled from a survey of several hundred field level agents and supervisors. FBI protests over these practices traveled up the chain of command and reached the White House–where they were ignored.

Documenting the widespread abuse and torture of detainees by CIA, Pentagon and “private” contractors in the employ of the U.S. Government, the file was initiated in 2002, but was ordered shut down by high level officials at the Bureau and the White House. FBI agents were ordered to stop keeping records of the criminal acts they had witnessed, The New York Times reports.

According to Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane,

The report says that the F.B.I. agents took their concerns to higher-ups, but that their concerns often fell on deaf ears: officials at senior levels at the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council were all made aware of the F.B.I. agents’ complaints, but little appears to have been done as a result. (”Report Details Dissent on Guantánamo Tactics,” The New York Times, May 23, 2008)

Indeed, rather than shutting down the criminal CIA/Pentagon operation at Guantánamo, these sordid practices were exported to Iraq when Camp Delta commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller was ordered by Pentagon officials to “Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib prison.

Back in 1992, the Government started using Threats Intimidation and Coercion to make Banks give Mortgages to people who were unable to get them, and should not have been getting Mortgages because of being too much of a risk. This is Over Regulation for the Socialist goal of “Affordable Housing”.

The Government used Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac as candy to get banks to make these risky loans. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are unconstitutional Socialist Institutions where the Government uses the future labor of Taxpayers, and their children, as Surety for Mortgages. Using Taxpayers as surety for loans puts the Taxpayers in a position of Involuntary Servitude, a violation of the 13th Amendment. The easy availability of mortgages and increased buyer demand caused the market to respond with higher housing prices which were based on an unrealistic ability to pay. A Housing Bubble was created.

The Socialists’ attempt to make housing more “affordable”, actually made the prices go up. As usual, the Socialist “Solution” to the problem actually made the problem worse.

These sub-prime loans were given a good credit rating by the Government because the Taxpayer is being USED to guarantee the loans. The CEOs of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac used these Socialist Institutions to make big contributions to Socialist Politicians. Of course these paid unscrupulous Freedom Stealing Socialist Politicians were more than willing to turn a blind eye as the corruption at Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac hit epic proportions.

Did you know that Mr. George W. Bush has a Socialist person named Paulson, as head of the treasury? This person has the bright idea that the Taxpayers should be forced to be on the hook for all of the “Bad Paper” out there. It doesn’t seem to occur to this person that eliminating the over regulation of Sarbaines would solve most of the problem by allowing this “Bad Paper” to actually be seen for the good paper that it is. The Socialist Paulson probably doesn’t want to get out of this mess without a Government Takeover, because if the Government can buy all of this “Bad Paper” and wait for things to level out, the mark to market rules that caused the problem will allow it to be worth up to 2.2 Trillion dollars, which they can use for more Socialist Government Handouts that Democrats use to bribe people to vote for them.

Nothing is more greedy than Big Government. First the Government creates Regulations which causes a Wall Street Fire Sale, then they pick up the “Bad Paper” for pennies on the dollar to later sell it at a profit. Instead of these securities being in the Private Sector where the securities would help people build their retirement funds via investment, thousands of people lose some or all of their investments as the Government FORCES a Takeover of these securities. A massive transfer of wealth out of your retirement and other funds, to the Government.

If Americans had cared enough about our Freedom to tell the Government that they are not allowed to violate our God Given 13th Amendment Right against Involuntary Servitude, the Welfare State and this whole problem could have been avoided.

Bush_Kazari.jpg

Karzai was a member of the Mujahideen (later renamed al Qaeda by the US) and took active part in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s. The Mujahideen were secretly supplied and funded by the United States, and Karzai was a top contact for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time. He had close personal contact with CIA Director William Casey and George H. W. Bush, who was Vice President of the United States under Ronald Reagan.

When the Taliban emerged in the 1990s, Karzai was at first one of their supporters but later he broke with them and refused to serve as their U.N. ambassador. He lived in exile in Quetta, in Pakistan where he worked to reinstate the Afghan king, Zahir Shah. His father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, was assassinated on July 14, 1999 by the CIA who immediately claimed it was the Taliban . The US killing of his father gained a much needed ally for when the Bush administration was to take power and begin their war of terror. Karzai swore revenge against the Taliban by working with the US to help overthrow them.

In the months following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mujahideen(al Qaeda) loyal to the Northern Alliance and other groups worked with the U.S. military to overthrow the legitimate Taliban government and muster support for a new government (coup)in Afghanistan. In October 2001, Hamid Karzai and his al Qaeda fighters survived an American “friendly fire” missile attack in southern Afghanistan. The group received injuries and were treated in the United States, Karzai received injuries to his facial nerves as can be noticed sometimes during his speeches.

In December 2001, political leaders gathered in Germany to agree on new anti-democratic leadership structures. Under the December 5 Bonn Agreement they formed an interim Transitional Administration and illegally installed Karzai Chairman of a 29-member governing committee. He was illegally sworn-in as leader on December 22. The Loya Jirga of June 13, 2002, appointed Karzai Interim holder of the new position as President of the Afghan Transitional (Traitors) Administration.

On September 20, 2006 Karzai told the United Nations General Assembly that Afghanistan has become the “worst victim” of terrorism. Never mind that he participated in aiding and abetting a foreign country in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Afghanistan, personally directed US military attacks against his own country killing his own countrymen, and continues to claim the presidency of Afghanistan whilst Afghanistan is under military occupation by a foreign state. Using the military of a foreign country to attack, destroy and kill your own country and people is by far the worse act of terrorism against your own. The people are the victims of Hamid Karzai’s betrayal. Hamid Karzai would be swiftly judged by the people of Afghanistan if and when the US ends their unlawful war of aggression and withdraws their troops from Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan will never be won because the fact is the US, aided by Hamid Karzai, unlawfully attacked a sovereign foreign state and removed the leadership in a coup. There are no opposing army, navy or air force in Afghanistan. There are only true patriotic Afghan citizens defending their country and countrymen through armed resistance against the unlawful attacks and occupation of their country by the US - Just as the French people did when Hitler attacked and occupied their country in WWII

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

amero-coin.jpg
Illegally minted Amero Coin ready for Harper majority

The signs are very clear. Even the US Treasury are reporting that the bailout has done nothing to stall the fall of the US economy. It is now believed that the US dollar will crash sending the US into a major depression, far worse than the Great Depression. The bailout is only a payout to those who supported the Bush administration. Now that the US is ready to collapse and Bush is on his way out the Bush war mongers are taking US tax dollars and running. Some still believe that things can go as planned for by the Bush administration. The purpose of the unending and very costly wars is to bankrupt the US in favor of a North American Union with US corporate giants in control of Canada’s abundant natural resources and fresh water supply. No Canadian wants to be a part of the US. Canadians are more than happy to do business with our US neighbors but for Canada’s and Canadians benefit. There are a few in Canada who are Americans disguised as Canadians. One such American holds the title of Prime Minister. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s only goal is obtain a majority government. Once he gets a majority government his first order of business is to hand over Canada to the US. The US government is holding off the collapse of the US dollar until Stephen Harper gets the needed majority. As soon as Harper gets a majority he and Bush will declare that they are forming the North American Union. They will sell their treasonous acts as the only solution to the US and World economic crisis. The Amero has already been illegally minted by the Bush Administration in Denver. They are waiting for Canada to have a Stephen Harper majority. With a Harper majority government, economically very strong Canada will cease to exist. No longer will there be a Canada. No longer will there be the RCMP as they will be immediately disbanded. The Canadian flag will be banned. Canada will be under US occupation as thousands of US soldiers and police will pour into Canada to protect Harper and the new North American Union. Anyone who opposes the NAU will be rounded up and jailed as terrorists. Politicians, police officers, soldiers, reporters, teachers and pro-Canadians who oppose the NAU will be kidnapped from their homes, businesses and off the streets by US mercenary armies like Black Water. The whole purpose for the Canadian gun registry was not to protect Canadians from criminals it was solely to have a gun registry of where all the guns are so that when Harper betrays Canada they can be confiscated before they can be used against US soldiers and police entering Canada in its illegal occupation of the sovereign country of Canada.

economic-sense.jpg

With no end in sight to the Iraq war and Congress borrowing hundreds of billions to pay for the war wouldn’t it be better for the US economy for the US Congress to stop funding the war? The answer to the US economic crisis wasn’t to throw $700 billion into something with absolutely no return. $700 billion would have been better spent on creating new jobs which automatically snowballs into people with new jobs buying new homes and all the things that go into the purchase of a new home - a boost in the economy. The bailout did nothing to stop the crisis. The bailout only added more debt to the US economy which is why the US is in an economic crisis in the first place. If the US government had infused $700 billion into immediate creation of new jobs the market would have reacted positively. A strong economy is only strong when the people are employed. Employment brings confidence back to the market. The retailers know that if people are employed they will buy. Unemployed can’t afford to buy anything but the necessities. It would be more logical and practical to declare that the war is over and allow the troops to return home to their families. At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. Congress is still pouring in $billions into the war with no end in sight. Bush said, “We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president.” That statement clearly states that no matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much it cost, not even if there is no threat, Bush intends on wasting lives and money by continuing his unnecessary and unjustified war (illegal too - then United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter) .

US Constitution
Section 8

Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

James Madison, the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817), and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States warned the people of the United States of America about these days in history; “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'’

The legislation to bail out financial institutions contains a decidedly dictatorial twist. Section 8 relates to review of the Secretary of the Treasury’s decisions. It reads as follows:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Bottom line, there is no review of the Secretary’s decisions. This essentially makes him the USA’s financial dictator. Read the whole proposal. The Secretary may issue regulations, enter into contracts, disperse funds, and designate financial agents of the government at his discretion, not subject to review! This delegation of legislative power to the executive branch is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and violates the principle of the separation of powers.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS
Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.–The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

All residential or commercial assets owned by the people of the United States of America can now be taken by the Treasury at any time and used for any reason. Not only has the people been tricked into paying for the worthless bad debts of financial corporate giants but now Bush has swindled (to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit) the peoples’ current valued assets and all future valued assets.

Swindle proposed by Bank of America in February 2008

It was back in February 2008 that Bank of America proposed creating a Federal Homeowner Preservation Corporation that would buy up billions of dollars in troubled mortgages at a deep discount, forgive debt above the current market value of the homes and use federal loan guarantees to refinance the borrowers at lower rates.

“We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bailout of the bond market,” The bailout is just that a bailout of th bond market but sold to the public as a bailout of default mortgages held by the people. Nowhere in this bailout does it help the people with their mortgages or credit debts.

The House fiscal 2009 budget, which passed last March 2008, raises the borrowing authority of the United States from $9.815 trillion to $10.2 trillion, an increase of $385 billion dollars. The Senate, passing its own version of the 2009 budget, did not raise the federal borrowing authority, but does expect to spend $3 trillion, with a projected deficit from $340 to $366 billion. Some estimate that the Treasury Department will hit the $9.815 debt ceiling limit shortly after the November elections, which will be no surprise to anyone. The national debt ceiling is a debt limit set by Congress beyond which the national debt cannot be exceeded. At any given time there is a debt ceiling in effect. Whereas Congress once approved legislation for every debt issuance, the growth of government fiscal operations in the 20th century made this impractical. The Treasury was granted authority by the Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt did not exceed a stated ceiling.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 04 Oct 2008 is now $10,153,832,866,360.48. Adding the $1 Trillion bailout to this (which is by the way is illegal as it exceeds the US debt ceiling) makes the US national debt $11,153,832,866,360.48. The government does not have the authority to payout the $1 Trillion bailout. The bailout exceeds the debt ceiling. The bailout is actually contributing to the economic collapse of the United States. The estimated population of the United States is 304,846,244 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $33,308.05. In comparison when Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. He has doubled the national debt making him the worse leader in US history. The main reason for the debt crisis in the US is the unwarranted, unjustified and illegal wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whoever is elected (or whoever rigs the election) to the White House in November will inherit an economic meltdown, but it doesn’t really matter, as the media-elected main candidates wouldn’t change any of the policies of the Bush administration anyway. In fact, they may become far worse. And don’t look to the democrats in the House and Senate to put up more than a whisper in protest.

Instead, it falls to the American people to dictate the course the nation will take by electing well-informed constitutionalists to office to replace the assorted “compassionate conservatives” and outright socialists who, being in office now, are driving the nation into the ground.

US Bailout puts the United States under emergency economic rule

EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008
Oct 3, 2008 - WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, today released the following statement after the House of Representatives passed and the President signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act:

“I commend Chairman Frank, Speaker Pelosi, and Congressmen Emanuel, Boehner and Blunt for their contributions to this bipartisan, bicameral effort.

“Section 101 (a)(1) establishes what is termed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to which substantial portions of what the American people currently owe to their banks and financial institutions is to be turned over the US Government for redistribution to foreign banks.

Section 101(c)(3) Designates for the first time in American history these foreign banks as financial agents of Federal Government with full law enforcement authority over the citizens in the US.

Section 3 (b) allows the US Secretary of the Treasury to put any kind of debt, including credit card, home loans, personal loans, automobile loans, etc., into the TARP programme.

Section 112 allows the US Secretary of the Treasury to astoundingly extend financing to foreign banks to purchase the debt of the American people.

Section 112 (1)(a) allows the US Government to hold stocks in companies for the first time in their history and which completely destroys the capitalist economy of their Nation.

Section 119 (2)(a) gives the US Secretary of the Treasury dictatorial powers not reviewable by courts making this position the most powerful one in America.

Section 122 increases the US public debt to the incredible amount of $11,315,000,000,000 (Trillion)

Section 204 puts the United States under emergency economic rule and states, “all provisions of this Act are designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs”.

There is a parallel between what is happening today with the US government giving $1 Trillion to the financial sector and the massive insider trading that took place just prior to the Bush September 11 2001 attacks against the US. The only difference this time is that the government is robbing the people in the open instead of in secret prior to 2001. The agenda is the same, make as much money as possible before a Bush administration pre-planned attack can be executed against the US. The new 9/11 will divert the attention of the people and the criminal investigation agencies from the criminal activity that has taken place with this bogus financial bailout to engaging in more wars against more innocent countries.

A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted a new Executive Order, released July 17, 2007, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: “When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there’s no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule.”

“The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face,” Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.

Criminal Insider Trading prior to the 9/11 attacks

Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades — which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed — the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

It is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media.

It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades, “selling short” and “put options”.

“Selling Short” is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months.

“Put Options,” are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 – regardless of where the market then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.

A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:

- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.

- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

- The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.

- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders,” their profit would have been about $5.5 million.

The bailout proposed to buy worthless financial debts has now ballooned to over $1 Trillion with the addition of vote buying packages. Yes the bailout has grown because in order to get the necessary votes to pass the Bush administration has resorted to bribery - paying for votes.

Who are the loser in all this. The people of the United States of America because this buyout does nothing to help them pay their mortgages and debts. This bailout actually increases their debt because they are the ones who will be paying for it in their personal income taxes.

Who are the winners;

The Bush family will receive $billions through Carlyle Group. This bailout will finance George W Bush’s next failed business venture.

Henry Paulson will receive nearly $1 billion from the bailout payout to his former employer Goldman Sachs - he will receive even more when he takes back his position as CEO of Goldman Sachs in 4 months.

Merrill Lynch for influencing the market with unjustified revising of ratings for public companies in order to present a false impression of economic doom.

Bank of America will receive several $100 billion as payment for coming up with the scheme to defraud the American people. Ordered newly acquired Merrill Lynch to engage in securities fraud in order to create fear in the market.

The American people don’t have to be the victims of this massive fraud. It is your right and duty to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) if you believe you are a victim of this crime. It is the job of the FBI to investigate all criminal activity that affects the the United States. The American people can recover the entire amount illegally discharged to the financial sector when the FBI investigates charges of bribery and wire fraud.

anti-canadian.jpg
Stephen Harper as special guest to US based The Council on Foreign Relations

Canadian Nationalist Mel Hurtig and others investigative researchers suggest that the Stephen Harper government has called the snap 2008 Federal Election, so that he can expedite the North American Union (NAU) agenda. What is that? The NAU is an apparent scheme to hand over Canada to the United States and its large private corporations. You might wonder, why the Canadian mass media is not covering this apparent agenda? Mel Hurtig and other researchers also reveal that the Canadian mass media has been taken over by U.S. interests and Canadian elites who support the NAU agenda. The NAU is in turn, an evolution of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). John Turner had observed that NAFTA was never about “Free Trade” but instead about enabling the take-over of Canada, by preventing the ability of Canadians to prevent the giving away of sectors of the Canadian economy to U.S. interests.

The Council on Foreign Relations is an organization whose mission is to redefine American policy and slide this republic into a one-world government – a nightmare beyond what most Americans can’t even imagine. Rear Adm. Chester Ward was a member of the CFR for 16 years and later warned the American people as to the true intentions of this treasonous operation:

The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world-banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.

Former Congressman John R. Rarick warned:

The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship.

Lou Dobbs, CNN Anchor: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad? We’ll have a special report. Blood … Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.”

Do you want Canada stolen from you in this 2008 Federal Election? Educate yourself. Even in the US, US officials are warning their own people that a secret government has already recruited the leaders of all three countries that make up North America, including Stephen Harper, to bring about the North American Union. Harper endorses the dissolving of Canada - a treasonous act - in favor of the North American Union. What was he promised to get him to betray his own country? What was the price he settled on to willfully commit treason?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following comment:

“We don’t have a lot of leeway on time,” Reid told reporters in the Capitol. “One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company — a major insurance company — one with a name that everyone knows that’s on the verge of going bankrupt. That’s what this is all about.”

Sen. Reid’s staff later said they and Senator Reid have no idea which insurance company was being talked about.

By not naming the company they are clearly engaging in fear mongering to provoke an unwise, unethical and unsound payout of US taxpayers money to a few corporate giants with personal ties to Henry Paulson and the Bush family. It is the same tactic used by the Bush administration to get the vote they needed to make the Patriot Act law (more like anti patriot act as the Bush administration unjustifiably strips every American of their Rights to freedom - The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.) and declaration of war with Iraq (Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and Collen Powell shows up with a vial they claim is anthrax). Congress is quick to bow to fabricated threats by the Bush administration. The truth is the $700 billion bailout is not going to help the people of the United States of America. The bailout is a hand-out to greedy CEOs who are responsible for their own downfall. No investment broker would commit any money to a stock option with no value so why is the Bush administration quick to pour in $700 billion to buy zero value debt? The answer is simple fraud - In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called “theft by deception,” “larceny by trick,” “larceny by fraud and deception” or something similar.

One US company that would benefit from Bush’s fraud scheme is Merrill Lynch, which was acquired by Bank of America for $29 per share ($50 billion dollars) last month. Toronto’s benchmark stock index fell more than 600 points Thursday morning as big fertilizer stocks tanked and investors appeared to take little comfort from the U.S. Senate’s vote in favour of a Wall Street bailout. Saskatoon-based Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc., or PotashCorp, which calls itself the world’s largest fertilizer company, led the list of losers, falling more than $28, or about 21 per cent, to about $108.

Traders dumped the stocks after bailout benefactor and bankrupt Merrill Lynch had one of their analyst cut his rating on the sector from “buy” to “underperform,” citing weak prices and concern about future earnings . Bank of America is the largest commercial bank in the United States by market capitalization. It is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It too has a huge stake in Bush handout with its newly acquired Merrill Lynch. It would appear that Merrill Lynch may be resorting to securities fraud to help itself at insuring that the fraudulent bailout goes through - devaluing stock by revising its rating is one sure way of instilling fear. Do remember Merrill Lynch was involved in securities fraud between 2000 and 2002 involving another fraudulent rating scheme. In 2000 a number of relatively new Internet companies did their banking with Merrill Lynch, whose securities expert, Henry Blodget, gave these companies a high or “buy” rating (meaning it was a good time to buy these stocks), even when he knew they were in trouble and might fail. Trusting Blodget, many investors continued to follow his advice and buy stock in the companies. By 2001 several of the companies had failed and investors lost millions. New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer investigated and found emails written between other Merrill Lynch analysts describing Blodget’s recommended stocks as “junk,” and called them “disasters waiting to happen.” Spitzer even found company emails from Blodget himself calling the very stocks he continued to rate high to investors as junk. Merrill Lynch paid a settlement of $100 million to the State of New York on May 21, 2002. The SEC and other regulators added another $100 million. Henry Blodget was banned from the securities industry and fined $4 million dollars.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy worthless assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp. But it was Bank of America Corp (Merrill Lynch) that devised this $700 billion scheme to defraud the people of the United States of America.

In February 2008 Bank of America proposed creating a Federal Homeowner Preservation Corporation that would buy up billions of dollars in troubled mortgages at a deep discount, forgive debt above the current market value of the homes and use federal loan guarantees to refinance the borrowers at lower rates.

We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bailout of the bond market,” the financial institution noted in February 2008.

In practice, taxpayers would almost certainly view such a move as a bailout. If lawmakers and the Bush administration agreed to this step, it could be on a scale similar to the government’s $200 billion bailout of the savings and loan industry in the 1990s. The arguments against a bailout are powerful. It would mostly benefit banks and Wall Street firms that earned huge fees by packaging trillions of dollars in risky mortgages, often without documenting the incomes of borrowers and often turning a blind eye to clear fraud by borrowers or mortgage brokers.

Bush_Henry_Paulson_as_Treasury_Secretary.jpg

No one has bothered to report the immense conflict of interest that the Treasury Secretary Henry Merritt “Hank” Paulson Jr. has in this rape deal for taxpayers. The Goldman Sachs golden boy stands to make millions off taxpayers’ wallets if the deal goes through. But help people facing foreclosure? No way.Here’s how a real bailout works: Goldman Sachs needs money, Warren Buffet gives them money. In return, Warren Buffet gets stock that pays a ten percent dividend. Within hours of revealing his dramatic, confidence-boosting investment in Goldman Sachs on September 24, 2008, Warren Buffett had made a $783 million (£424 million) notional profit.

Now, for comparison, here’s the shell game version.

(1) Goldman Sachs gives Hank Paulson seven hundred million dollars (that’s seven zero zero comma zero zero zero comma zero zero zero) in salary and bonuses.

(2) Goldman Sachs lends Hank Paulson to the Treasury (now that he can afford to be a public servant).

(3) As the Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson insists that we give Goldman Sachs a lot of money, in exchange for a lot of crap. (If not, we all die.)

(4) Except it’s not Hank Paulson’s money, it’s ours.

(5) If the crap turns out to be crap, we’re stuck with it. (And by the way: if it’s not crap, why are they so desperate to unload it?)

(6) In four months, Paulson returns to Goldman Sachs.

(7) Paulson receives salary and bonuses from the money we just gave to Paulson to give to Goldman Sachs to give to Paulson.

(8) It’s our money. Or was. But we don’t get preferred shares. We don’t get a ten percent dividend. We don’t even get a free copy of The Warren Buffet Way: Second Edition (Paperback). We get crap.

In essence: when Goldman Sachs needs money, and the guy lending the money is rich, they give him something for it. When Goldman Sachs needs money, and the guy lending the money is us, they don’t.

Canadians have been forced into an early election by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A minority government doesn’t have the authority to call an early election yet that is exactly what Stephen Harper has done. Elections Canada Act 56.1 Election dates (2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009. Why would Stephen Harper call an early election knowing full well that he is violating the law - parliamentary law?

As stated in previous articles published on nbgazette.com the agenda is for Stephen Harper to wipe Canada off the face of the map for the US controlled North American Union. The website bushharper.com makes it perfectly clear that Stephen Harper cannot be handed a majority government. If you are Canadian and intend on being Canadian for generations to come you can do your patriotic duty by not voting for Harper.

r_eagle_lib_20amero_pl.jpg
The NAFTA Amero Minted in Denver Ready to Replace The US Dollar Today

George W Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing the borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration’s true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the Bush is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled “Building a North American Community” published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration’s actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

How severe will the coming dollar collapse be?

“People in the U.S. are going to be hit hard,” Chapman warned. “In the severe recession we are entering now, Bush will argue that we have to form a North American Union to compete with the Euro.”

“Creating the amero,” Chapman explained, “will be presented to the American public as the administration’s solution for dollar recovery. In the process of creating the amero, the Bush administration just abandons the dollar.”

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” little noticed when Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment “to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security.” The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that “our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.” Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

Analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar. The Bush administration has been trashing our country and our money in every way possible, such as with the war in Iraq and using overpriced contractors, all so that an illegal corporate currency can be implemented in place of the US Dollar.

The only way out is to cancel the NAFTA treaty. To cancel NAFA means jobs stay in the US, the economy will boom as US citizens will be employed and have income to pay their debts and purchase new items for their homes. To cancel NAFTA means a stronger US dollar.

gr_carlyle.jpg
Carlyle Group Former Secretary of State James Baker, former President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci and former FCC Chairman William Kennard

A month after suffering the biggest embarrassment in its 20-year history, the Carlyle Group closed on a $1.35 billion fund to buy distressed assets, the Wall Street Journal reported. The new fund, Carlyle Strategic Partners II, will do everything from investing in publicly traded bonds and bank loans to purchasing ailing companies outright. It is the first Carlyle vehicle to close since the collapse of Carlyle Capital Corp (The Carlyle Capital, a mortgage bond fund, collapsed when it failed to reach agreement with lenders who demanded more than $400 million for margin call.), a fund also managed by Carlyle Group.

Private equity investors will play an important role in the historic bailout just announced by congressional leaders, and there’s money to be made, according to David M. Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group.

The Carlyle Group is one of the wealthiest and most successful private-equity firms in the world, with around $80 billion under management, $40 billion of which is in cash that is ready to be deployed. Rubenstein was quoted as saying “Private equity has a lot of experience buying assets at distressed prices and we expect to see a lot of attractively priced assets. It’s good that private-equity firms are in good shape and have the resources to buy some of these assets and help the system.”

Carlyle is looking to hire Wall Street private equity specialists and other financial professionals who have been orphaned by the recent turmoil, to help the firm pursue opportunities generated by the bailout and with other distressed financial properties.

Bush Carlyle Connection

The Carlyle Group, is a Washington DC based investment firm managing some $14 billion in assets, including stakes in a number of defense- related companies. Carlyle counts among its chieftains former Defense Secretary (and deputy CIA Director) Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of State James Baker and, most notably, former President George Bush.

Carlyle Group had also maintained financial ties with none other than the family of Osama bin Laden, but those links were severed when it was agreed that the relationship was becoming a tad embarrassing for all concerned - 9/11.

Because the Carlyle Group remains privately held, it is not required to disclose details of its investments or business activities. It is commonly known, though, that the firm favors the defense and aerospace sectors, with a wide array of investments in Pentagon affiliates.

“Their defense holdings are quite extensive,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a Washington public interest law firm. “Because of their investments, they are a major contractor for the Pentagon.”

Among Carlyle’s holdings is United Defense Industries, a maker of armed vehicles and weapons, which filed in October to raise up to $300 million in an initial public offering of its shares.

Judicial Watch filed suit to obtain documents shedding light on Carlyle business activities undertaken by President Bush’s father, who reportedly met with bin Laden’s family in Saudi Arabia at least twice prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. He also has had dealings with a variety of foreign governments.

In a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration’s decisions, through his father’s investments. Bush’s association with the Carlyle Group is a “conflict of interest.

hillary-paulson.jpg
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y, and Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Henry Paulson get together before the groundbreaking ceremony begins for the new $1.8 billion Goldman Sachs world headquarters, in lower Manhattan, Tuesday Nov. 29, 2005, in New York.

So just who stands to benefit if Congress agrees to borrow another $700 billion to address what the administration says is a financial crisis that threatens to bring back Hoovervilles?

Who will bear the burdens, and who will receive the benefits, of the proposed fast-track bailout of Wall Street firms, banks and others who got rich selling financial products that some of have warned for years were toxic?

The burdens will fall on the taxpayers, who, if some version of the bailout goes through, will take the risk that they might get some of their money back, but may see the entire $700 billion go poof–and be asked to pony up more.

If this goes badly we will be paying $35 billion a year in additional interest basically for the rest of all of our lives, money we will not have for investing in the future through education, research and fixing up our rotting infrastructure.

Few remember that Henry Paulson, was the chairman and CEO of Goldman before he was treasury secretary and who swung into action right when Goldman’s shares appeared to be sinking like a Spanish galleon weighted down with too much gold.

Secretary Paulson was the guy in charge, and grew mega-rich, when Goldman was in the lead in pushing what it said were innovative financial products. And one does not rise to become head of Goldman (or keep that job) by doing anything less than making your underlings richer than they ever imagined possible, whether you are Henry Paulson, Jon Corzine, or Robert Rubin.

Now that is not to impugn Paulson’s integrity. Based on the known facts, Mr. Paulson has worked himself to exhaustion trying to do what he thinks is right for the country.

But what he thinks is right is as shaped by where he worked and made his fortune and became the boss as your and my ideas on how best to solve a public issue are by our experience and background.

By the way, to put $700 billion in perspective, it is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge on every American.

It will not be financed with cash, of course. Instead, the money will be borrowed. Think about that–borrowing to pay off for bad borrowing.

FR-Pro.jpg

What is the main reason for the economic crisis in the US and around the World? The answer has to do with oil prices. Whether you believe it or not the only reason why oil prices are so high is because of pure speculation. The spike in oil prices has driven home how speculators are destroying oil markets and the economy. Professor Lord Meghnad Desai, emeritus professor of economics at the London School of Economics who stated that “Nothing has happened in the real oil economy to justify such a sharp and steep rise in its [oil’s] price.”

Professor Desai says that “much of the rise in oil price is the result of activity on the New York Mercantile Exchange. He indicates that this is “activity by index funds and pension funds that are investing in oil futures, not for direct use but as financial assets for profit” and “contrasts with activity by oil producers and consumers who buy and sell to smooth out fluctuations in price and delivery.”

“These financial institutions — index funds and pension funds — are neither buying oil nor selling it. They are passive investors in commodities. They have invested $260 billion in commodity markets, compared with $13 billion just five years ago. Much of this money is in oil. The Goldman Sachs Commodity Index is heavily weighted by oil – 78% compared with less than 2% for precious metals.”

“The point is that this paper market is not driven by the pressures on demand and supply but entirely by price expectations. An underlying situation — which may well indicate a medium-run rise in oil price — is being exacerbated by the bolstering of expectations that prices will rise even faster. It is this extra layer of price rise that is driving money into even the farther future contracts. There are futures contracts being bought and sold for 2016 at $138/B — only astrologers pretend that they can forecast that far ahead.”

“How large is the speculator activity? The total open interest, the number of open or outstanding contracts for which an individual is obliged to the exchange because that individual has not yet made an actual contract delivery, in the 2008 contracts on May 21 was 849.472 contracts, which equals 849 million barrels, or nearly 10 times the daily crude oil production. The daily volume in the 2008 contracts on May 21 was 657.391 contracts, equivalent to 657 million barrels or nearly 8 times the daily crude oil production.”

“This is a problem that requires immediate action. The best way to counter speculation is to make it less profitable. Step one is to protect the regular traders in the real oil economy (those who intend to close their positions by making or taking delivery of oil) and charge them a lower margin than those who have no intention of plying the oil trade. The purely financial traders must be made to pay a proper price for their speculation. This can be done simply by increasing the margin that they have to put down to trade as open interest, from the current 7% to about 50%.”

“It is up to the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations leaders to urge NYMEX to implement this policy. It is in tune with free market logic and at the same time it makes oil speculation less profitable.

02Accord.gif

In the meantime what can you and I do to beat them at their game of crystal ball speculation? The most significant change for the good would be for us all to lower our demand for oil by buying and investing in fuel efficiency devices and technology, alternative fuels and hybrids. A reduction in oil and fuel consumption will help curb the unjustified speculation. If every vehicle on the road can add 5 mpg (miles per gallon) to their fuel economy oil and fuel demand will immediately drop by 10 to 25%. A drop in demand will lower the price of fuel. Before the US invaded Iraq oil prices were around $35.50, a barrel. Today it has almost tripled to $96.50 a barrel and at one point it sold for $138.54 per barrel. Oil prices can be drastically lowered back to realistic prices when it is no longer in high demand or the crystal ballers don’t make a profit. On Dec 18, 2007 the US Congress, by a wide margin, approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years. The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100. Bush signed the bill into law the very next day. The legislation will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it “a major step” toward energy independence and easing global warming. What if you can’t afford to wait for the auto makers to start rolling out the better fuel efficient vehicles? Canadian inventor Paul W Kincaid has developed the FuelReducer that immediately increase your vehicle’s fuel economy by 10 to 45%. The FuelReducer has been giving its customers an average of a 5 mpg gain in fuel economy. It has been reducing fuel consumption for the last 2 years. Anyone can get more information and even buy the FuelReducer online at www.fuelreducer.com . This simple in-line fuel saving device has a money back guarantee if at least a 10% increase in fuel economy is not achieved. What would you rather invest in, speculation or proven results?

Now that the US Senate has defeated the $700 billion blank check to Wall Street what can you and I do to help the economy? Anyone with money to invest can stop investing in stocks with little return and no control and start investing directly with small businesses and new technology. The answer is very simple and is entirely based on the concept of a free market. Most people have lost their entire savings because of the unethical and sometimes illegal actions of investment firms. An even greater amount have watched their portfolio slowing depreciate because of brokers racket balling your financial portfolio amongst themselves knowing there is no return for the holder of the stocks, only more broker fees. The economy is still very strong. It is Wall Street that is failing because everyone has realized that Wall Street has been manipulating the market for their gain only. No one is willing to invest into financial firms because of what they have been doing. No one invests when there is nothing to gain. The Wall Street financial woes are brought on by corporate greed. For years they have playing their games with your money.

I hope you’ve learned a lesson. I hope you have come out being wiser. The people still have money and lots of it. What has been happening on Wall Street is not because of a weak US economy it is entirely because everyone has stopped wasting their hard earned money on useless stocks and investment companies. So again, what can you do to help the economy? If you have money that is sitting in the bank collecting no interest, you can help bankroll a new or existing business or help in the development of new technology. You take your money and invest directly, immediately eliminating the broker and third party fees. By investing directly in businesses and technology you control your finances. Partnerships with investments brokers and firms are very risking. They, like lawyers make all the money when they represent you. If you represent yourself in a partnership you have a say. With stocks you can do nothing but watch your money being taken from you. So be smart, invest directly. There are plenty of good sound projects and investments out there. The economy succeeds when you succeed.

Treasury spokeswoma “It’s not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number.” They made it up to be sufficiently ginormous to frighten everyone into rapid action. And it worked.

TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I–CRIMES

CHAPTER 47–FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully–
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1031

§ 1031. Major fraud against the United States

(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent?
(1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

cutting-down-money_tree.jpg
The US last money tree. Fall is near.

As the Wall Street bailout talks continue, a critical Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is not confident that House will pass the legislation, as he told The Hill. “If the votes were there, this would be on the floor,” he said. “The votes aren’t there.”

“Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?” Kucinich asked today. “Why aren’t we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren’t we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren’t we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn’t it time for fundamental change in our debt-based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks?”

Kucinich attended a meeting of the “Skeptics Caucus,” organized by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and consisting of House Democrats skeptical of the bailout effort. The meeting’s speakers included economic professor James Galbraith of the University of Texas and former FDIC chairman William Isaac. Sherman called the legislation a Bush administration “power grab” and a handout to Wall Street. “This is greatest shift of power to the imperial presidency and the greatest shift of wealth to a still wealthy Wall Street that anyone could imagine,” Sherman said.

“None of this has been subject to a critical analysis,” charged Rep. Kucinich. “We haven’t had access to the books to the people who are claiming they are going broke.”

“They rushed this Congress into the Iraq resolution and look what happened,” he added, comparing the rushed tone behind the bailout effort with the push to invade Iraq, “Catastrophe for this nation as well as for the people of Iraq.”

“The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street is driven by fear, not fact,” Kucinich said on the House floor Sunday. “This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren’t we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren’t we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers’ money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren’t we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren’t we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren’t we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?”

In six years, U.S. Public debt has increased from 4 trillion to 10 trillion dollars. With the US government pushing for a bailout to buy the bad debt of bankrupt “private” financial corporations compounded with the additional $634 billion spending bill (passed 78-12 vote) now sent to George W Bush for signing, the US debt will be almost 11.5 trillion dollars. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the US and head of the Government Accountability Office, in his December 17, 2007, report to the US Congress on the financial statements of the US government noted that “the federal government did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with significant laws and regulations as of September 30, 2007.”

The GAO report states accrued liabilities of the federal government “totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007.”

No funds have been set aside against the liability. The estimated net worth of all American families is about $47 trillion, reducing as property values reduce.

The US is bankrupt!

If the US Congress is weak enough and stupid enough to give $700 billion of federal funding to “private” corporations who have made themselves bankrupt with bad and unethical trading practices then there is no doubt that the US will itself be filing for bankrupt very soon.

The debt limit and why is it important?

Since 1941, Congress has established in law the maximum amount of debt the federal government may issue. The Treasury does not have legal authority to issue any debt above this statutory limit. To avert a default on its credit obligations or a shutdown of government operations, occasionally it is necessary to raise the limit. The current Debt Limit was increased from $9.815 trillion to $10.615 trillion effective July 30, 2008. If the US Congress bails out the “private” financial corporation the Debt Limit will be exceeded, which the US Congress has no legal authority to issue. When the debt limit is exceeded the government is bankrupt.

There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good & valuable consideration.”

With the usual misdirection, the press reports plummeting Wall Street stock prices as if they mattered to ordinary people. In fact, as economist Dean Baker has repeatedly pointed out “The stock market is not a good barometer of the economy’s health. “It can be driven up as a result of a redistribution from wages to profits, or simply as a result of irrational exuberance. “Neither is good for the economy as a whole, although anything that pushes up stock prices is obviously good news for the small minority of people who own substantial amounts of stock.”

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?
We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order!

Who is to blame?

Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch of the United States government, known as Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The US Constitution Article 1 Section 8: Powers of Congress clearly state that Congress has the sole power:

- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
- To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
- To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

Nowhere does it state that the US Congress has the power to “print” money. Legal tender has always been “coin” money and every time the US Federal Reserve simply “prints” notes they are injecting counterfeit money into the system. Counterfeiting is the production of documents by legitimate printers in response to fraudulent instructions. Today, the finest counterfeit banknotes are the U.S. dollar bills - because they are not coined and they are not backed by equal value coin money.

Some of the ill-effects that counterfeit money has on society are:

1. Reduction in the value of real money
2. Increase in prices (inflation) due to more valueless money getting circulated in the economy - an unauthorized artificial increase in the money supply
3. Decrease in the acceptability (satisfactoriness) of money - payees may demand electronic transfers of real money
4. Increase prices of commodities

A federal Reserve Note Swindle.

The swindle of the system is simple. The Federal Reserve Bank hires the US Treasury to print up some money. The Federal Reserve only actually pays the treasury for the cost of the printing, they do NOT pay $1 for each 1$ printed. But the Federal Reserve turns around and loans out that money (or credit line) to banks at full face value, those banks which have exhausted their deposits then loan that Federal Reserve fiat money to you, and you must repay it in the full dollar value (plus interest) in work product, even though the Federal Reserve printed that money for pennies, or created it out of thin air in a computer.

As the Federal Reserve overprints more money, the money supply inflates, and too much money starts chasing too few goods and services, which means prices go up. But contrary to the charade put on by the Federal Reserve, inflation doesn’t just come and go due to some arcane sorcery. The Federal Reserve can halt inflation any time it wants to by simply shutting down those printing presses. It therefore follows that both inflation and recession are fully under the control of the Federal Reserve. This means the cycle of inflation and recession is an intentional one; a gigantic heartbeat that pumps paper certificates out to the working class, while pumping real wealth in to the owners of the banks.

Over time, that excess of printing has destroyed the value of that dollar you think you have.

It should be noted that the banks themselves are still using the gold standard. Accounts are still settled between major national banks by the transfer of gold bullion.

So here we are with a bank that legally counterfeits the money you borrow but expects a full value (plus interest) repayment. But what’s good for the Federal Reserve is good for the government itself, and this is where we get back into that funny word “deficit spending”. The government spends more money than it takes in. It has for many years now. The Federal Reserve, being the only lawful source of this fiat money, prints up the excess cash the government needs (or manufactures a credit line in a computer). This extra cash is treated as a loan, in order to keep the government overspending from further eroding the worth of the dollar in the world market. The government (meaning the taxpayers) is on the hook for the full face value, plus interest.

But there’s another problem. The government is borrowing so much money that it drives the interest rates up! You pay MORE interest on your mortgage, car loan, and credit cards, because the government cannot balance its books. That extra interest you pay is therefore another hidden tax. The government, in its “generosity”, gives you a tax credit on mortgage interest that is higher because of their own borrowing!

In short, the United States is in deep trouble. It has lost a huge amount of manufacturing capacity, and those products they still make do not compete well on the world market, despite the steady devaluation of the dollar. In short they have vast debts to pay and little to pay them with. Like the foolish Farmer we have sold the machinery that allowed us to prosper, and we stand around shaking our investment portfolios back and forth in the hopes that the money inside will somehow grow all by itself. It won’t. It never has. The very best that can be said is that money gets moved from one person to the other.

Those nations and banks to whom the US owes money have been very patient indeed with the US. They know that our economies are so tightly entwined that what hurts America will hurt them. But sooner or later, possibly after a market crash, someone, in order to pay their own debts, will demand their loans to the United States be paid. Rather than get caught with “bad paper”, there will be a run on the United States government.

In addition to the government debt, US businesses are home to trillions more in foreign investment, kept here by the promise that the American taxpayer will be made to cover all losses. But with our manufacturing in decline and our schools producing far more lawyers than anything else, it should be obvious to the prudent observer that the American taxpayer, even if so inclined, may not be able to cover the losses of their own government, let alone a foreign investor. That has to be making them nervous as well.

This brings us to the “equities markets”, most notably the stock market. Over the last several years a constant media harangue has assured us that the soaring numbers of the stock market are the sole measure of how good our economy is. But close examination of those high-priced stocks reveals that most are heavily over-valued; their price the result of market forces rather than underlying worth (earnings ability).

The government has admitted to using covert means to prevent a market downturn; to keep the stock prices at an artificially high and overvalued level, in order to wave those impressive numbers about as “proof” that everything is okay so that the taxpayers go back to work and pay more taxes. But in order to keep those stock prices up above their actual worth, demand must be maintained to keep the prices high. In other words, NEW investors must constantly be brought into the bottom of the pyramid to keep the prices of the stocks at the top from dropping. Hence the onslaught of commercials luring neophyte investors into the stock market via “online trading”. Like any Ponzi scheme, the stock market will collapse when no more new buyers can be dragged in at the bottom. As the market starts to stutter, governments (most recently Britain) have moved to dump huge reserves of gold onto the world market to depress gold prices and deter investors from deserting the stock market for gold.

kennedydollar.jpg
Kennedy Dollar - new dollars backed by gold independently of the Federal Reserve

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

“United States Notes” were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a “Federal Reserve Note” issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a “United States Note” from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy’s Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper “currency” circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new “money”. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and real value worth something.

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

No nation ever had an army large enough to guarantee it against attack in time of peace, or ensure it of victory in time of war.

Abraham Lincoln

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

ciaLogo.jpg

State Sponsors of Terrorism is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to nations who are designated by the Secretary of State “to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Although implemented by the US it also applies to the US. Terrorism is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or “terror”, are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or utterly disregard the safety of non-combatants. Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments. Democracy is ultimately an ideology as is communism.

The fundamental features of democracies include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of political minorities, respect for basic human rights, equality before the law, due process, and political pluralism. Today democracy has been replaced by a totalitarian dictatorship in US because what defines democracy has all but been eliminated in the US. Common to all definitions of totalitarian dictatorship is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the official state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party state, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. This describes the Bush administration to the letter.

How does state sponsors of terrorism apply to the US? The current US government is currently engaging in acts of terrorism to impose drastic change in the US and control over the Middle East. Instead of fighting terrorism they are using terrorism as a tool to strip the rights of the US people and to further their agenda of controlling the oil of the Middle East. There is just one organization in the World that is responsible for World wide terrorists attacks, assassination and bombings. The Internet reveals their terrorist deeds. That organization is financed by the US to implement US policies and agenda around the World. That organization has its headquarters in the US. That organization is the US CIA or Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA is an intelligence agency of the United States government. Its main use is to gather and analyze information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons and reporting such information to the branches of the Government. Its second function is propaganda or public relations. The third function of the CIA is as the hidden hand of the U.S. government by engaging in covert operations at the direction of the president. The last function has caused most controversy for the CIA. It has been raising questions about the legality, morality, effectiveness, and intelligence of such operations.

The CIA have infiltrated foreign countries and their mission is to recruit, train and finance foreign nationals for terrorist acts that have included sabotage, kidnapping, torture, assassinations and coups. 9/11 was their biggest operation (Operation Northwoods) and their mission was to set the stage for George W Bush to start his wars of terrorism. They recruited and trained Osam bin Laden for the Afghan Soviet war. They are still recruiting foreign nationals for operations that are solely for the US interests and they now include terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. The US most recent terrorist attacks include the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007 in Rawalpindi Pakistan (ordered because she was about to reveal evidence that bin Laden was dead), and the Marriott Hotel bombing where Pakistan’s senior leaders were to have attended a dinner at the Marriott Hotel but changed their venue to the Prime Minister’s house just hours before the massive bomb devastated the building (ordered because Pakistan dared to exercise its right to protect its sovereignty against illegal US military incursions and attacks on Pakistani soil) . The CIA also was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese premier’ Rafiq Hariri (The US wrongfully accused Syria of the attack because the US needed for Syrian troops to leave Lebanon in preparation of Israel’s US backed attack of Lebanon. With the full political, financial and military backing of the United States, Israel is attempting to transform Lebanon into an Israeli protectorate.Israel’s invasion of Lebanon is a continuation and escalation of the imperialist geo-political restructuring of the Middle East and Central Asia that began with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose goal is the establishment of US domination of the entire region.)

In Afghanistan, the US and NATO forces are hunting the Taliban because when they were in power they wiped out the Opium trade. The Taliban are not terrorists. Their only crime is that they completely destroyed the US supply of Opium that is used to make the cocaine that has infested the streets of every major US city. The Taliban wiped out the Opium drug trade in Afghanistan and the UN had confirmed this. The Bush administration attacked Afghanistan to bring back the Opium trade. They are hunting down the Taliban so that their grow opts will never be threatened again. Both the Clintons and the Bush family have made their money from the illegal drug trade and the illegal weapons sales to foreign countries. The US and NATO forces are not even hunting for Osama bin Laden or any al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan because al Qaeda is a division of the CIA. Every news story from Afghanistan reports on US and NATO operations against the Taliban yet they had nothing to do with 9/11. They stopped the flow of drugs to the US and that is why they were overthrown and are being hunted today.

The US has been sponsoring terrorism since the end of WWII. The CIA was created in 1947. The first CIA operatives were actually Germans. The US implemented Operation Paperclip at the end of WWII to smuggle out a large number of German Nazi SS officers to the US where they began working as the first CIA operatives. Their original duties for the US were to use their skills as Nazi SS officers to spy on the Soviet Union. Operation Paperclip was the code name under which the U.S. intelligence and military services also extracted a large number of German scientists from Nazi Germany, during and after the final stages of World War II. They were sent to Fort Bliss, Texas for rocket testing at White Sands Proving Grounds as “War Department Special Employees. Even today, in 2007, German troops are arriving at Fort Bliss and Holloman AFB. This time their mission is against the US own people. They are stationed there, not for the interest of the United States but to serve the interest of the secret government in the US that JFK spoke of. “they are there…for the hour of martial law, to help arrest Americans and seize their weapons and fire upon them if they resist?”

By Shah Gilani - Money Morning

Are you shell-shocked? Are you wondering what’s really going on in the market? The truth is probably more frightening than even your worst fears. And yet, you won’t hear about it anywhere else because “they” can’t tell you. “They” are the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department, and they can’t tell you what’s really going on because there’s nothing they can do about it, except what they’ve been trying to do - add liquidity.

At the exchange rate yesterday (Wednesday), 35 trillion British Pounds was equivalent to U.S. $62 trillion (hence, the 35 trillion Pound gorilla). According to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, $62 trillion is the notional value of credit default swaps (CDS) out there, somewhere, in the market.

In the early 1990s, in order to hedge their loan risks, J. P. Morgan & Co. [now JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)] bankers devised credit default swaps.

A credit default swap is, essentially, an insurance contract between a protection buyer and a protection seller covering a corporation’s, or sovereign’s (the “referenced entity”), specific bond or loan. A protection buyer pays an upfront amount and yearly premiums to the protection seller to cover any loss on the face amount of the referenced bond or loan.
Typically, the insurance is for five years.

Credit default swaps are bilateral contracts, meaning they are private contracts between two parties. CDSs are subject only to the collateral and margin agreed to by contract. They are traded over-the-counter, usually by telephone. They are subject to re-sale to another party willing to enter into another contract. Most frighteningly, credit default swaps are subject to “counterparty risk.”

If the party providing the insurance protection - once it has collected its upfront payment and premiums - doesn’t have the money to pay the insured buyer in the case of a default event affecting the referenced bond or loan (think hedge funds), or if the “insurer” goes bankrupt (Bear Stearns was almost there, and American International Group Inc. (AIG) was almost there) the buyer is not covered - period. The premium payments are gone, as is the insurance against default.

Credit default swaps are not standardized instruments. In fact, they technically aren’t true securities in the classic sense of the word in that they’re not transparent, aren’t traded on any exchange, aren’t subject to present securities laws, and aren’t regulated. They are, however, at risk - all $62 trillion (the best guess by the ISDA) of them.

Fundamentally, this kind of derivative serves a real purpose - as a hedging device. The actual holders, or creditors, of outstanding corporate or sovereign loans and bonds might seek insurance to guarantee that the debts they are owed are repaid. That’s the economic purpose of insurance.

What happened, however, is that risk speculators who wanted exposure to certain asset classes, various bonds and loans, or security pools such as residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities (yes, those same subprime mortgage-backed securities that you’ve been reading about), but didn’t actually own the underlying credits, now had a means by which to speculate on them.

If you think XYZ Corp. is in trouble, and won’t be able to pay back its bondholders, you can speculate by buying, and paying premiums for, credit default swaps on their bonds, which will pay you the full face amount of the bonds if they do actually default. If, on the other hand, you think that XYZ Corp. is doing just fine, and its bonds are as good as gold, you can offer insurance to a fellow speculator, who holds the opinion opposite yours. That means you’d essentially be speculating that the bonds would not default. You’re hoping that you’ll collect, and keep, all the premiums, and never have to pay off on the insurance. It’s pure speculation.

Credit default swaps are not unlike me being able to insure your house, not with you, but with someone else entirely not connected to your house, so that if your house is washed away in the next hurricane I get paid its value. I’m speculating on an event. I’m making a bet.

The bad news is that there are even worse bets out there. There are credit default swaps written on subprime mortgage securities. It’s bad enough that these subprime mortgage pools that banks, investment banks, insurance companies, hedge funds and others bought were over-rated and ended up falling precipitously in value as foreclosures mounted on the underlying mortgages in the pools.

What’s even worse, however, is that speculators sold and bought trillions of dollars of insurance that these pools would, or wouldn’t, default! The sellers of this insurance (AIG is one example) are getting killed as defaults continue to rise with no end in sight.

And this is only where the story begins.

economic-sense.jpg

With no end in sight to the Iraq war and Congress borrowing hundreds of billions to pay for the war wouldn’t it be better for the US economy for the US Congress to stop funding the war? The answer to the US economic crisis is not to throw $700 billion into something with absolutely no return. $700 billion would be better spent on creating new jobs which automatically snowballs into people with new jobs buying new homes and all the things that go into the purchase of a new home - a boost in the economy. It would be more logical and practical to declare that the war is over and allow the troops to return home to their families. At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. Congress is still pouring in $billions into the war with no end in sight. Bush said, “We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president.” That statement clearly states that no matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much it cost, not even if there is no threat, Bush intends on wasting lives and money by continuing his unnecessary and unjustified war (illegal too - then United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter) .

US Constitution
Section 8

Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

endthewar.jpg
It’s high time the Bush Administration quit ignoring the overwhelming public opposition to this $1 billion a day war.

The answer to stopping the economic woes in the US is very simple. The answer is in the hands of the US Congress as they hold the strings to funding. The answer is to end the wars immediately. The answer is obvious and a necessity. The US Congress has legal ground to end the war - first and foremost George W Bush committed perjury when he went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war. By Bush’s own admission Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 making the attack and occupation of Iraq morally and legally wrong.

As the Democratically-controlled 110th Congress searches for a way to end the economic crsis it seems appropriate to recall how the U.S. Congress ended the Vietnam War, and more recently, further U.S. military combat involvement in Somalia. At the end of those dark days, ending the battle came down to ending the money.

*Drawing the Purse Strings to End Wars*

Since 1970, the United States Congress considered 21 bills intended to restrict or totally cut off funding for U.S. military operations on foreign soil. Of those 21 bills, five were actually enacted.

In some cases, the funding cutoffs were absolute and applied to specific military operations, like combat. In other cases, continued spending was allowed for limited military purposes, including combat related to the
safe withdrawal of U.S. troops and civilians. In a few instances, the funding cutoff was contingent upon certain conditions or events taking place, such as the negotiation of a cease-fire or the release of U.S.
prisoners of war.

In November of 1993, Congress passed an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibiting the obligation of additional funds for U.S. military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994. The amendment carried four conditions under which additional funding could be allowed after the cutoff date: 1.) The money was requested by President George W. Bush, Sr. and approved by Congress. 2.) The money was necessary to protect U.S. civilians. 3.) The money was needed for U.S. combat forces under the command and control of U.S. commanders. 4.) In the event President Bush, Sr. had decided to intensify efforts to have the U.N. deploy additional troops to Somalia to take over ongoing
military efforts.

There seem to be three common threads to wars that are eventually ended by the U.S. Congress. First, a majority of the public wants the war ended. Second, the President of the United States believes the war can ultimately be won. And third, Congress ends up having to cut off further funding for the war to end it.

The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion—roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

Oil prices have surged since the start of the war, from about $37 a barrel to well over $90 a barrel in recent weeks, the report said. “Consistent disruptions from the war have affected oil prices,” although the Iraq war is not responsible for all of the increase in oil prices, the report said.

Still, the report estimated that high oil prices have hit U.S. consumers in the pocket, transferring “approximately $124 billion from U.S. oil consumers to foreign (oil) producers” from 2003 to 2008, the report said.

police-state.jpg
Vets Earned the Right to Protest War. At an anti-war demonstration numerous Iraq Veterans Against the War were arrested by Washington, D.C. police as they crossed a police line.

In a post-9/11 climate, the right of free expression is under attack. It’s been endangered in the age of George Bush when dissent may be called a threat to national security, terrorism, or treason. But losing that most precious of all rights means losing our freedom; as 18th century French philosopher Voltaire spoke in defense of saying “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Using it to express dissent is what noted historian Howard Zinn calls “the highest form of patriotism” exercising our constitutional right to freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, to protest publicly, and associate as we choose for any reason within the law.

Even then, there are times more forceful action is needed, and Thomas Jefferson explained under what circumstances in the Declaration of Independence he authored. When bad government destroys our freedoms, we the people have the right and duty to disobey civilly and resist. Henry David Thoreau called it “Civil Disobedience” in 1849, and men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King practiced it successfully 100 years later. That’s our challenge today at a time our constitutional rights are more compromised and threatened than at any previous time in our history. Resistance is the antidote to restoring them, and freedom-loving people have a duty and obligation to do it.

That’s what freedom is all about and what our Founders had in mind when they crafted what they called “the great experiment” that became our Constitution and Bill of Rights; imperfect as they are with omissions and ambiguities. In words first written by Thomas Jefferson, they “declared their independence” in 1776 from the British king who ruled the colonies with “repeated injuries and usurpations (by his) absolute Tyranny” using language considered audacious then or now:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (and) endowed….with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Try doing that today, and it’s called treason, a capital offense. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others thought otherwise saying we must act in our own defense when government won’t do it for us.

Their “experiment” was glorious, even flawed, and never before tried in the West in any form since its few decades of existence in ancient Athens under its system of “demokratia” or rule by the entire body of Athenian citizens - or at least the non-slave adult white male portion of it meaning a selective democracy for an elite minority excluding all others the way it’s always been here. It began in 1776 with our Declaration of Independence followed by our Constitution ratified in 1789 and Bill of Rights in 1791. This extraordinary document’s Preamble said what our country’s liberties are in 52 historic words even though the language belied the reality:

“WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thomas Jefferson once said - “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

mccain-bush-hug-twn.jpg

Republican Senator John McCain, like George W Bush, doesn’t recognize the People’s constitutional right to freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, to protest publicly, and associate as we choose for any reason within the law.

On orders from Senator John McCain, Denver police escorted a 61-year-old woman away who was waiting in line to attend a town hall meeting with McCain that was billed as open to the public.

Carol Kreck, who works as a librarian in Denver, held a homemade sign reading “McCain = Bush.” On orders from McCain’s security detail, police cited her for trespassing (billed as open to the public) and escorted her to the sidewalk. She was told if she returned she would be arrested for exercising her constitutional right to freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, to protest publicly, and associate.

“And all I did was carry a sign that said McCain = Bush,” Kreck said. “And for everyone who voted for Bush, I don’t see why it’s offensive to say McCain = Bush.”

This episode by McCain’s Secret Service appears to be a rerun of McCain’s 2005 town hall in Denver with President Bush in which the Secret Service had three Denver citizens removed from an “open” event where McCain was campaigning with Pres. Bush for his plan to privatize social security.

NAU.jpg
If you vote for Stephen Harper this will be your new flag

Mel Hurtig, the founder of the Council of Canadians, and also a variety of other reliable sources including veteran CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, now reveal that senior elected representatives and advisors to the Conservative Party, are currently planning a scheme that would hand over Canada to the Bush regime. The official name for this scheme, is called “North American Union”. The calling of an early election, that violates the Canadian Election Act, was ordered by the Bush administration because the Bush White House wants Harper to hand over Canada to the US while Bush is still president. The US November elections end the “North American Union” agenda because there is no doubt that with Obama as president, the US will return to the rule of law and non-aggression. Harper has been trying to have the opposition defeat his minority government but has failed so Harper has resorted to breaking the law and calling an election he has no right to call as the prime minister of a minority government. He needs a majority to hand over Canada to the US.

According to the law a general election can only be held on a “fixed” date unless the Governor General dissolves Parliament as a result of a non-confidence “vote” of the House of Commons. The fixed date for the next general election is October 19, 2009 as there hasn’t been a non-confidence vote asked for and passed in the House of Commons against Harper’s government. Canadian Law clearly declares that Harper is breaking the law.

Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided researchers with the agenda and attendee list of the so-called “North American Forum” at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14, 2006.

Mr. Hurtig said the “secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process.” In addition, the reported Agenda undermines the Statutory position of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, as the constitutional expression of a Canada independent from the U.S.

“What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries,” he said. “It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye,” Mr. Hurtig further indicates.

The motive for U.S. participation, according to Mr. Hurtig, was “to gain access and control Canada’s extensive natural resources, including oil and water.”

Documents obtained by researchers associated with the Council of Canadians were marked “Internal Document, Not for Public Release.” At least three current Ministers of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party minority government are cited in the Document as “ring leaders” so-to-speak, of an unlawful and anti-constitutional effort to hand Canada to the Bush regime.

Canadian constitutional and related law is quite clear that any such effort by elected members of a government to subvert the political authority of the Government of Canada, constitutes breach of a Parliamentary Allegiance of Office, and broadly treason.

This is because the reportedly directed efforts of Ministers in the Stephen Harper government, to hand over Canada to the political authority of Mr. Bush, as the American Head of State, without the consent of the diverse Canadian public, can only be executed by the seditious overthrowing of the Crown, i.e. Canadian Head of State.

Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 indicates as follows:

Every member of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; .

The oath set out in the Fifth Schedule reads as follows:

I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty… [Elizabeth II].

According to the Sixth Edition of Beauchesne’s Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada:

Should a member violate his oath he [or she] would be amenable to the penalty of not being allowed to sit in the House of Commons. He [or she] may be suspended from taking part in the sittings while still remaining a member of Parliament, or, in a case of extreme gravity, a Bill might be passed to annul his election…

The power of dealing with treason is inherent in the Parliament of every country.

The leaked document clearly substantiates that Ministers of the Stephen Harper Government are sharing information with representatives of the U.S. military-industrial-complex, for the purposes of “surrendering” Canada to a U.S.-based “non-democratic authority”. This apparent government-sponsored effort is designed to destroy the sovereign authority of Canadians as co-owners of their society, in violation of all Canadian Constitutional Acts since 1867.

Pursuant to Section 46 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Codes “Every one commits treason in Canada, when someone (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 52 of the Criminal Code of Canada, to the extent that the apparent efforts of the Stephen Harper government to surrender Canada to a non-democratic American political arrangement is seditious to “(a) the safety, security or defence of Canada,” the Stephen Harper government has executed treason. If that has indeed occurred, then the Stephen Harper government, if it has any semblance of integrity, must surrender its authority to the Governor-General acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, toward new Federal Election.

In the last 2006 Federal Election, the Conservative Party kept trumpeting its slogan that it would “Stand up for Canada”. Then, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper during that elected indicated that he would similarly “Stand Up” for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Mr. Harper portrayed his party, as a party which would govern Canada with integrity and openness in a spirit of renewed democracy, in contrast with the ‘corruption’ of the Martin Liberals. As it turns out, these assertions by Mr. Harper could not be further from the truth.

This coming election is about Stephen Harper wiping Canada off the map. It’s about activities tantamount to Treason, involving Breach of Parliamentary Oath and conspiracy to overthrow Her Majesty. If you vote for Harper you’re voting to become Americans. You no longer will be able to call yourself Canadian. If you are Canadian and proud of being Canadian you must not vote for Stephen Harper. He is desperate. He is making promises that you and I both know he won’t keep. He needs a majority to make Canada extinct. For your country’s sake elect any one else but Harper. Your country needs you to defend it.

endthewar.jpg
It’s high time the Bush Administration quit ignoring the overwhelming public opposition to this war.

The answer to stopping the economic woes in the US is very simple. The answer is in the hands of the US Congress as they hold the strings to funding. The answer is to end the wars immediately. The answer is obvious and a necessity. The US Congress has legal ground to end the war - first and foremost George W Bush committed perjury when he went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war. By Bush’s own admission Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 making the attack and occupation of Iraq morally and legally wrong.

As the Democratically-controlled 110th Congress searches for a way to end the economic crsis it seems appropriate to recall how the U.S. Congress ended the Vietnam War, and more recently, further U.S. military combat involvement in Somalia. At the end of those dark days, ending the battle came down to ending the money.

*Drawing the Purse Strings to End Wars*

Since 1970, the United States Congress considered 21 bills intended to restrict or totally cut off funding for U.S. military operations on foreign soil. Of those 21 bills, five were actually enacted.

In some cases, the funding cutoffs were absolute and applied to specific military operations, like combat. In other cases, continued spending was allowed for limited military purposes, including combat related to the
safe withdrawal of U.S. troops and civilians. In a few instances, the funding cutoff was contingent upon certain conditions or events taking place, such as the negotiation of a cease-fire or the release of U.S.
prisoners of war.

In November of 1993, Congress passed an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibiting the obligation of additional funds for U.S. military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994. The amendment carried four conditions under which additional funding could be allowed after the cutoff date: 1.) The money was requested by President George W. Bush, Sr. and approved by Congress. 2.) The money was necessary to protect U.S. civilians. 3.) The money was needed for U.S. combat forces under the command and control of U.S. commanders. 4.) In the event President Bush, Sr. had decided to intensify efforts to have the U.N. deploy additional troops to Somalia to take over ongoing
military efforts.

There seem to be three common threads to wars that are eventually ended by the U.S. Congress. First, a majority of the public wants the war ended. Second, the President of the United States believes the war can ultimately be won. And third, Congress ends up having to cut off further funding for the war to end it.

The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion—roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

Oil prices have surged since the start of the war, from about $37 a barrel to well over $90 a barrel in recent weeks, the report said. “Consistent disruptions from the war have affected oil prices,” although the Iraq war is not responsible for all of the increase in oil prices, the report said.

Still, the report estimated that high oil prices have hit U.S. consumers in the pocket, transferring “approximately $124 billion from U.S. oil consumers to foreign (oil) producers” from 2003 to 2008, the report said.

nuke.jpg

A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted a new Executive Order, released July 17, 2007, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: “When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there’s no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule.”

“The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face,” Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.

According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.

“The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists … are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events,” he said. “You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated.”

Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush’s current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.

“They may have had enough. They may not go along with it,” he said.

The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert’s latest column, in which he warned that “unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”

Roberts, who has been dubbed the “Father of Reaganomics” and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War. His credentials include:

During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.” From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff, where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

CIA-operative.jpg

In the aftermath of two CIA terrorist attacks on Western targets, America’s counterterrorism community is warning that the CIA operatives may launch more overseas operations to influence the presidential elections in November.

Call it George W Bush’s “October surprise.” In late August, during the weekend between the Democratic and Republican conventions, America’s military and intelligence agencies intercepted a series of messages from US leadership to intermediate members of the organization asking local cells to be prepared for imminent instructions.

An official familiar with the new intelligence said the message was picked up in multiple settings, from couriers to encrypted electronic communications to other means. “These are generic orders,” the source said — a distinction from the more specific intelligence about the location, time, and method of an attack. “It was, ‘Be on notice. We may call upon you soon.’ It was sent out on many channels.”

Also, Yemen’s national English-language newspaper is reporting that a spokesman for Yemen’s Islamic Jihad, a CIA affiliate that claimed credit for last week’s American embassy bombing in Sa’naa, is now publicly threatening to attack foreigners and high government officials if American and British diplomats do not leave the country.

Mr. Bush has sought to influence democratic elections in the past. On March 11, 2004, the US CIA carried out a series of bombings on Madrid commuter trains. Three days later, the opposition and anti-Iraq war Socialist Workers Party was voted into power.

In the week before the 2004 American presidential election, Mr. Bush had Allied Media Corp produce a video message to the American people promising repercussions if President Bush were re-elected. In later messages, the CIA phantom militant group Al Qaeda claimed credit for helping elect Mr. Bush in 2004. Last year in Pakistan, CIA assassins claimed the life of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister who returned to her native country in a bid for re-election.

There is an expectation that the CIA will try to influence the November elections by attempting attacks globally. It would likely be a higher CIA tempo of attacks against U.S. and allied targets abroad.

Every major terrorist attack against the US and its allies are, in all probability, carried out by the CIA. The CIA is tasked with collecting, evaluating, and disseminating foreign intelligence to the President and senior US policymakers to assist them in making decisions relating to national security. The CIA may also engage in covert actions at the direction of the President.

CIA Sponsored Terrorism from 1953-Present

Statement of Ralph Nader September 16, 2008 Before the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on “Restoring the Rule of Law”

Mr. Chairman and members of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the important and fundamental topic of “Restoring the Rule of Law” to the workings of the Executive Branch. I ask that this statement be made part of the printed hearing record and I commend you for taking the initiative to explore what steps the next President and the next Congress must take to repair the massive damage that President George W. Bush has done to the rule of law and our democracy.

When the President beats the drums of war, the dictatorial side of American politics begins to rear its ugly head. Forget democratic processes, Congressional and judicial restraints, media challenges, and the facts. All of that goes out the door. Dissenting Americans may hold rallies in the streets, but their voices are drowned out by the President speaking from the bully pulpit.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the resulting quagmire, is Bush’s most egregious foreign policy folly, but reflects a broader dynamic. Remember retired General Wesley Clark’s stinging indictment of the administration: “President Bush plays politics with national security. Cowboy talk. The administration is a threat to domestic liberty.”

President George W. Bush often uses the words and terms, “freedom,” “liberty,” and “our way of life” to mask his unbridled and largely unchallenged jingoism. The politics of fear sells. Cold war politics sold. The war on terrorism sells. But it’s a very expensive sale for the American people. Even with the Soviet Union long gone, America’s military budget amounts to half the operating federal budget. While vast resources and specialized skills are sucked into developing and producing redundant and exotic weapons of mass destruction, America’s economy suffers and its infrastructure crumbles.

Canadian inventor living in Toronto, Ontario Canada has been working on a Water for Fuel Project for the past 2 years and has released a video of his findings thus far. Watch the video that proves that water (H2O) can be split (cold fission) simply by applying a low level frequency and duty cycle to stainless steel plates immersed in tap water. The amount of energy used is just 4.5 volts. The 4.5 volts is required only to power the programmable frequency generator board. No heat or high voltage is applied to the tap water at any time. Frequencies typed on a laptop computer, programs the programmable frequency generator board to apply the given frequency and duty cycle to the stainless steel plates. It doesn’t take very long to split water into its gas components of hydrogen and water.

Let me point out that I am going to talk about “Cold Fission” not “Cold Fusion”. There is a big difference, in that “Cold Fusion” has already been labeled an impossibility by the scientific community - or at least that is what they want us to believe and have gone to great lengths to discredit everyone who has come out and reported having found the secrets of Cold Fusion. My report is about “fission” not “fusion. ” The anomaly of “cold fusion” experiments — high energy yields with few neutrons or tritium nuclei — has resulted from a simple case of mistaken identity? There are a number of nuclear fission reactions that produce neither neutrons nor tritium, yet yield large quantities of energy.” Scientists have mistakenly reported on the process used to gain large amounts of energy in their experiments. A communication error has resulted in the World being denied access to a free energy source from the most abundant and cleanest fuel source on Earth - Water.

To understand the errors that caused the unnecessary wars to control the oil supply of the World we have to start with understanding the most important and basic fact - that water sustains all life on Earth. Water contains the oxygen we need to breath and the fuel (hydrogen) to create motion (life). No one on Earth can survive very long without water (H2O). We can’t survive and function without water. Our food can’t survive and grow without water either. About 1,460 teratonnes (Tt) of water covers 71% of the Earth’s surface, mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation. Saltwater oceans hold 97% of surface water. This fact alone states that 97% of the Earth’s water is readily available to mankind - not for human consumption (because humans require fresh water), but as the most abundant source of energy. How do we get that energy? By applying Cold Fission to saltwater which will provide both the energy we need to fuel our cars and homes as well as adds more oxygen to Earth’s atmosphere. Let me explain it all by starting with the very basics. First off what is Fission? Fission is defined as

1: a splitting or breaking up into parts
2: reproduction by spontaneous division of the body into two or more parts each of which grows into a complete organism
3: the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy

You already know that water’s chemical description is H2O - that is one atom of oxygen bound to two atoms of hydrogen. The hydrogen atoms are “attached” to one side of the oxygen atom, resulting in a water molecule having a positive charge on the side where the hydrogen atoms are and a negative charge on the other side, where the oxygen atom is. Since opposite electrical charges attract, water molecules tend to attract each other, making water kind of “sticky.” The side with the hydrogen atoms (positive charge) attracts the oxygen side (negative charge) of a different water molecule. All these water molecules attracting each other mean they tend to clump together forming water drops. As more water drops are formed they stick to each other to form a liquid state of water. Cold Fission is used to reverse the process - return water or split the liquid state of water back to its three atoms; an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.

The bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms are very strong. The bond needs to be broken and Cold Fission does this. Most scientists would declare that it takes a lot of energy to break the bond between the oxygen and hydrogen that makes up water. That is why they continue to discredit all claims of Cold Fusion. But Cold Fission doesn’t require a lot of energy to split Water. In fact very little energy is required in Cold Fission to begin splitting the bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms of water. The very definition of fission is splitting or breaking up into “parts” and nowhere does it hint or suggest that energy, or a lot of energy is required to do it. Scientists have known for decades what it takes to break the bond that makes water. The secret they have been keeping from us is that water can easily be broken up into its oxygen and hydrogen parts by applying a resonant frequency (radio wave).

You already know that crystal radios were the only appliances on Earth that worked perfectly without using any energy supply. What you failed to see and understand is that they worked “without using any energy supply”. The crystal radio receiver (also known as a crystal set) is a very simple kind of radio receiver. It needs no battery or power source except the power received from radio waves by a long outdoor wire antenna. To listen to a specific broadcast we must tune in to the frequency being transmitted. Cold Fission uses low energy radio waves tuned to a specific frequency to split water into its oxygen and hydrogen parts. The key to building a successful Cold Fission reactor is to find the resonant frequency of the bond that stick the oygen and hydrogen atoms together. That frequency has already be discovered.

See video http://fuelreducer.c … H2O-Cold_fission.wmv

Near the end of the video sea salt is added to the tap water. The next video release will show you that sea water increases cold fission. The system being developed will use sea water and not tap water. The video used tap water to prove that only a frequency was needed, with nothing added to the water to split (fission) water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Using the known frequency that breaks the bond that holds water together in a liquid state in a Cold Fission reactor produces free energy. Free because you can produce the radio wave frequency with a simple crystal radio that needs no battery or power source. Free because there are many means of collecting free water to use for both drinking and as fuel. If you live near the ocean water is yours for the taking. If you live in the country and you have well water you have your water for drinking, cooking, cleaning and fuel for your farm euipment and vehicles. If you live in the city where you pay for water you can still collect water for use as fuel for free simply by collecting rain water in a large plastic garbage bin placed in your own private backyard and balcony.

Financial-market sharks, who have been seized with fear, are suddenly drunk with hope. They are rallying explosively because they think they have successfully railroaded Washington into accepting the Wall Street Journal solution to the US financial crisis: ‘Dump it all on the poor taxpayers”. That is the meaning of the massive bailout Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has shopped around Congress. It would relieve the major banks and investment firms of their mountainous bad debts and make the public cover their losses — $700 billion, even as much a$1 Trilion. What’s not to like if you are a financial titan threatened with bankruptcy?

If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public — all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. Washington politicians must: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called “responsible opinion.” If this deal succeeds, it will become a transforming event in American politics — exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. This crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.

Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics put it plainly: “The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson’s latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist lovefest between Washington’s one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks.”

Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher in New York, defined the sponsors of this stampede to action: “Let us be clear, it is not citizen groups, private investors, equity investors or institutional investors broadly who are calling for this government purchase fund. It is almost exclusively being lobbied for by precisely those institutions that believed they were ’smarter than the rest of us,’ institutions who need to get those assets off their balance sheet at an inflated value lest they be at risk of large losses or worse.”

The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough — using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.

A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government’s actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: Accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own — cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government’s orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.

Only with these conditions, and some others, should the federal government be willing to take ownership — temporarily — of the rotten financial assets that are dragging down funds, banks and brokerages. Paulson and the Federal Reserve are trying to replay the bailout approach used in the 1980s for the savings and loan crisis, but this situation is utterly different. The failed S&Ls held real assets — property, houses, shopping centers — that could be readily resold by the Resolution Trust Corporation at bargain prices. This crisis involves ethereal financial instruments of unknowable value — not just the notorious mortgage securities but various derivative contracts and other esoteric deals that may be virtually worthless.